The following is a response that the editors of Comment asked me to write following their series on Neocalvinism. It is slated to appear to in the June print issue of the journal.

Perhaps I am a skeptic at heart. Of the four essays published, I found myself agreeing most with Daniel Knauss’ emphatic “No!” While at times I have been a hot or lukewarm follower of the movement (particularly Kuyper), Knauss’ pragmatic criticism of Neocalvinism struck a chord, particularly his critique of the movement’s ecclesiology (or lack thereof). Al Wolters had hinted at such things in his “What Is to Be Done…” essay. The Church, as an institution of cultural change, has been at best minimized and at worst forgotten by many in the movement. Perhaps this is a mutation of sphere sovereignty, or simply an ignorance of the traditions of the movement. Either way, it is a problematic position, and one I find rather ironic given the confessional, Calvinist foundations of the movement. The Church is not simply the house of worship–it is the community of believers, come together to worship, fellowship, and serve God.

This is not, however, a condemnation. In the discussions that have followed the essays, Gregory Baus, David Koyzis, and Byron Borger argue that Neocalvinism should not and cannot be separated from its confessional roots. Worldview, that which drives much of the Neocalvinist agenda, must flow from life within the tradition of Church, in communion with other believers. Without such a basis, worldview becomes little more than an intellectual exercise. This is where, perhaps, the Neocalvinists can learn from their co-belligerents in the Roman Catholic Church. A local parish can be heavily involved in the life of its community, and, in many communities, a parish is able to provide a level of support that the State, or even smaller non-denominational organizations cannot. And this is not a distortion of its mission–the Church is to be in the world, living out the teachings of Christ.

Along with Knauss, I wonder “what is to be done about the Church?” The Church, as Jacques Ellul states it in Presence of the Kingdom, lives “at the point of contact between two currents: the will of the Lord, and the will of the world.” These days the Church struggles against the current of the world, and it is with the Church that we, as followers Christ, succeed or fail. Worldview may help us understand our relationship as Christians to our jobs, our education, and perhaps our government, but in the end, if that worldview lacks an ecclesial foundation, it is no different than the house built on the sand–and such a foundation cannot withstand the currents of the world. Yes, what is to be done about the Church? But perhaps that question is backwards. Should the Church (specifically the reformational denominations that are the true flag bearers of the Calvinism at the root of the movement) ask itself what is to be done about Neocalvinism? Is it time for the Church to rightfully take back what is hers?

Posted on 8 May 2006