I have given some thinking to Kuyperian and Schaefferian apologetics lately which has led me to ask the question which titles this post. Since I’m a fan of both of these great men (Abraham Kuyper and Francis Schaeffer), I am trying to make an attempt to clearly and concisely articulate what it was that Kuyper was getting at. It seems to me that his theology needs to be framed as a fully orbed worldview rather than a disjointed abstraction one adopts along with other systematic commitments that have little bearing on ones life.

Since Abraham Kuyper is given the dubious title as the founding father of neo-Calvinism, I wanted to investigate how to best articulate this theology in a way that is more of an overview rather than a long dissertation on this subject. Doing a search for such a definition reminded me why it is good to look for thinkers who have written on such topics instead of reinventing the wheel (thank you again google and wikipedia).

I wanted to lay out a couple of definitions that touches on many of the aspects of neo-Calvinism that I find so attractive. Now, before you get your knickers in a twist, don’t jump to the conclusion that “neo” means a liberal version of the older view. I find that this usage of the term to describe a particular form of Calvinism has more to do with expanding the previous rather than abrogating its basic doctrinal commitments. Ok, enough of my garble. Here is a definition I found on Gideon Strauss’ site which I think is fair and more succinct than I have been able to produce up to this point.

Strauss defines neo-Calvinism as someone who…

… confesses Jesus the Christ as God and Lord over all of life.

… recognizes the enduring design of the world and seeks to shape their life in attentive response to that design.

… grieves the agony of evil, pain and failure in the world.

… brings hope and healing in their spheres of responsibility, conscious that hope only finds its fulfillment in the return of the Christ.

… cherishes the dignity of the human person as created in the image of God.

… accepts human responsibility for the cultivation of the world and therefore for the shaping of culture.

…. relishes the rich natural and cultural diversity of the world, and seeks to conserve and elaborate that diversity.

… works against the social effects of both individualism and collectivism, by taking part in the building of a diverse range of social relationships and helping to make room for social diversity in society.

Any one of these characteristics (or any subset of them, I guess), may also be true for adherents of other cultural movements. It is exhibiting them in this peculiar combination, and doing so in a conscious effort to contribute to their historical elaboration in the tradition of Augustine, Calvin, Groen Van Prinsterer, and Kuyper, that makes someone a neocalvinist.

Here is another description of neo-Calvinism found at wikipedia:

Jesus is lord over all of creation. Jesus’ lordship extends through every area and aspect of life—it is not restricted to the sphere of church or of personal piety.

The idea that all of life is to be redeemed. The work of Jesus on the cross extends over all of life—no area is exempt from its impact.

Cultural Mandate. Genesis 1:26-28 has been described as a cultural mandate. It is the mandate to cultivate and develop the creation. There is a historical development and cultural unfolding. Some Neo-Calvinists hold that the Cultural Mandate is as important as the Great Commission.

Creation, fall and redemption. God’s good creation has been disrupted by the fall. Redemption is a restoration of creation.

Sphere sovereignty (Souvereinitet in eigen kring). Sphere sovereignty insists that created boundaries should be affirmed and respected.

A rejection of dualism. According to Neo-Calvinists dualism has been rife in Christian thinking. The most notable dualism is the dualism between nature and grace that dominated much of Scholasticism. Neo-Calvinists reject this dualism and maintain that grace restores nature.

Structure and direction.

Common grace.

The antithesis. There is a struggle in society and within every person – between submission and rebellion against God; between the kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness.

Worldviews. Neo-Calvinists reject the notion that theoretical thought can be neutral. All thinking and practice is shaped by worldviews. For the Neo-Calvinist life in all its aspects can be shaped by a distinctively Christian worldview.

The role of law. For the Neo-Calvinists law is more than the decalogue. It is the creation ordinances established by God. These laws provide the norms for living in God’s world. *My personal clarification to this would be that Christ fulfilled the Law so that we can now live freed from its burden and curse since we are under grace, yet freed also to follow God’s Law since it is no longer burdensome for grace-saved Christians. We are then to demonstrate the kingdom to the world in which justice and law are seen as the guiding stipulations for a blessed society in relation to its Creator-God as they are transformed by the gospel.

Some other interesting comments on neo-Calvinism which I find in agreement with much of what I believe:

Neo-Calvinism is not just reformed, it is reformational. Whereas reformed theology tends to emphasize 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.

The Dutchman Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) is one of the “fathers” of the Neo-Calvinist tradition. Kuyper believed that the Bible, Christian theology, and Christian spirituality should be the framework from which all Christians engage the world and culture in order to bring every area of life under the Reign and Lordship of Jesus Christ (this is what Jesus meant when he preached “the Kingdom of God “). To embody this belief, Kuyper was a pastor, professor, and philosopher. He founded a newspaper, a university, and a political party. At one time, he was simultaneously the editor and chief of a national newspaper, the president of a university, and the Prime Minister of the Netherlands.

Byron Borger provides this summary of what is meant by reformational, especially as it pertains to the academy:

A word coined to describe a new brand of Calvinists who take the ideas of the Protestant Reformation beyond theology and abstract debates about the nature of the atonement and church life and rather seek to bring about Christian cultural change and social transformation. Serious, lasting change, however, can only come about after serious and radical re-formation of the philosophical assumptions currently deforming each sphere of culture. Reformational folk realize that to be “light in the darkness,” we need to re-think the inner structures of each academic discipline which shape each area of life.

Now, I’m going to leave it at that to see what responses come from the question; Are you a neo-Calvinist? I’m certainly not assuming that we’ll all just put on the title without some much needed thought, but I do hope that the question itself acts as a catalyst to spur on conversation about what it would mean to adopt such a definition. This might sound a bit silly since we don’t need another title to confuse people. I do think, however, that words can be used as an effective shorthand for those who have thought it through, so that when we discuss such definitions we don’t have to regurgitate our thesis every time we want to make a point.

I may write later in more detail about this topic, I may not. It all depends on how important I think the need is considering my responsibilities. I have too many impulses towards philosophical theology and I need to remind myself again and again that I am a pastor/theologian and not an academic one.

This may only interest me, and if that’s the case will render this a quick discussion. Perhaps this is nothing more than my fascination with the coolness of Dutch people. Kuyper, Dooyeweerd, Gomarus, Bavinck, Vos, Van Til, Rookmaaker, and Rembrandt (yep, him too, the epitome of the reformed artist!) have to be the hippest dead guys.