Neo-Calvinism and Cultural Engagement

I am indebted to Gideon Strauss for a sizeable and ever-growing number of things. The most important, however, is the philosophical-theological system known as Neo-Calvinism. It has its origins in aDutch Reformed tradition of which Abraham Kuyper is perhaps the most famous, and is essentially a Reformed Protestant way of thinking about how to apply sound doctrine beyond the church to the rest of life and culture. Derek Melleby has written a good introduction to Neo-Calvinism on his blog, in which he writes, "Neo-Calvinism is not just reformed, it is reformational. Where as reformed theology tends to emphasis the reformation and purity of the Church, reformational theology, while based on solid doctrine, uses this doctrinal basis to be about the reformation of all areas of life."

I find this sort of thought very interesting, for Christian engagement in and transformation of culture is one issue in which I am tremendously interested. I am not alone, for I am a student at Patrick Henry College an institution intended "to prepare Christian men and women who will lead our nation and shape our culture with timeless biblical values and fidelity to the spirit of the American founding." I will wait until another post to outline my concerns with the "spirit of the American founding" and the problems with the thinking that appeals to it on par with bilblical principles. I am not opposed to the idea of shaping culture with biblical principles, but I think I understand the meaning and importance of this very differently from those who founded PHC.

The college's founders, like many evangelical Christians today, have an idea that Christians should engage in culture, but not much of an idea why it should be done, and a rather unhealthy view of how. Somehow, if Christians are elected to Congress and the Presidency and appointed to the Supreme Court, and if some Christian filmmakers make some good films with a "Christian worldview," culture will magically change for the better. I am skeptical. Ironically, the Arminian-dispensational-premillenial-fundamentalist theology that characterizes most such people offers little support for a coherent strategy of cultural engagement.

I am convinced that meaningful cultural change will not come about primarily through Christians gaining political power and embarking on a course of banning gay marriage and returning prayer to schoolrooms. Nor will it happen if Christians produce more movies "with a biblical worldview" (whatever that means). Culture has been defined as the habits, norms, values, and mores which characterize and shape the interactions of a people. As such--because culture is made up of people--it is plagued by the problem of sin that is the fundamental post-Fall characteristic of humans and their interactions. Therefore, the only way to "change culture for Christ" is to change the hearts of the people who make up the culture. This means that the work of the church--the spread of the Gospel and the discipleship of its converts--is fundamental to meaningful transformation of culture. It is sadly ironic that evangelicals whose churches are splitting and whose families are falling apart want political power so stridently.

I realize, however, that simple evangelism and making converts to Christianity is not sufficient to build or transform a rich, complex, meaningful culture. Neo-Calvinists, I think, have an idea of how one goes from believing the Gospel to living it out, an idea of how sound theology is acted out in eating, drinking, playing, working, building, relaxing, creating, raising children, loving, making money, and developing all areas of life. To be honest, I don't know enough about Neo-Calvinism to make a judgement whether it's a good philosophy for going about cultural engagement, but I intend to find out. Insofar as it is grounded in and guided by sound doctrine, it is far better than the cultural plan (or lack thereof) guiding most modern evangelicals.

In this essay, Cornelius Pronk criticizes Neo-Calvinism on the basis that its emphasis on common grace over particular grace leads to "worldliness, superficiality and pride." Again, I haven't read enough to know whether this is a fair representation of Neo-Calvinist thought. If it's true that Neo-Calvinists find the reason for cultural engagement solely in common grace, to the exclusion of the redemptive work of God through Christ in history (which I don't think they do, given their narrative way of reading Scripture), then I must join the criticism and restate my conviction that cultural engagement must be grounded in the Gospel properly understood.

However, I think that much may justly be made of common grace. Because God gives things like rain, sunshine, food, shelter, health and prosperity to all men, and because the task of building culture was given to man at creation, any culture has many good things that do not result from the particular, redeeming grace of the Gospel. Some of the best music ever written was composed by men who were probably not Christians. Most of the best films ever created were the result of the creativity of men who were not Christians. Becoming a Christian does nothing to increase one's artistic or athletic skill. Christians, contrary to the "worldview" thinking of many evangelicals, can be productive and creative in ways that have nothing to do with their Christianity, but are nonetheless good. It seems that a great deal of cultural involvement, by Christians or anyone else, can be good because of common grace. If we want our involvement to be purposeful, effective, and meaningful (one could say teleological, or ends-based), then it must start with transforming the hearts of the people by the Gospel.

I intend to learn more about Neo-Calvinism, and if I come to any more conclusions about it, I shall post them here.