A New Public Theology for Our Times
Wednesday, March 4, 2009 at 9:51AM 
The December 2008 issue of Comment (published by Cardus) contains an important article. At first glance, it looks like one people might skip. It's called "Can We Hope for a Neocalvinist-Neopuritan Dialogue?" Like I said, easy to skip this article, especially if you don't identify as a member of either group - something that the author, Ray Pennings, admits in the first paragraph. But this short article is too important to miss.
To understand the article, you need to understand who he's talking about. Pennings uses the term "neopuritan" to refer to the resurgence of Calvinism documented in Collin Hansen's book Young, Restless, Reformed. These are the people who are drawn to a rediscovery of doctrine, especially of the sovereignty of God, and to Puritan literature. They listen to Piper, Mahaney, Driscoll, etc. and tend to be more pietistic in their approach to faith.
By "neocalvinist" Pennings is referring to continental or Kuyperian Calvinists. This group tends to focus on the cultural mandate, believing that God has called us to change the world in all spheres of life. Faith is not just about us and God; it's about the restoration of all creation. As Abraham Kuyper said:
There is not a square inch in the whole domain of human existence over which Christ, who is sovereign over all, does not cry: "Mine!"
Even if you don't belong to either group, you can see where this is going. We need the insights of neocalvinism so that we understand our cultural mandate, the potential and fallenness of every area of life, as well as common grace and more. We are called to engage and create culture. We need these insights so we don't withdraw from culture and privatize our faith.
But we also need the insights of neopuritanism, with a high view of the church, and an understanding that this world will only be fully restored just yet.
In other words, we need the pietism of the neopuritans and the world-changing culture-making call of the neocalvinists - something you find articulated, by the way, at churches like Redeemer Presbyterian in New York, and in the foundation documents of The Gospel Coalition. But it's rare.
Pennings writes:
Both these traditions are seeing a resurgence, and this newfound energy can lead to fruitful conversations. I would propose that framework for a new public theology for our times can emerge out of a convergence of these two movements. Such a theology would have to be rooted in orthodox doctrine, have a worldview robust enough to answer the questions our neighbors are asking, be applied with an ethic of integrity, and be lived out of a pilgrimage spirit, seeing that we are not called to build a lasting city, but that we seek one to come (Hebrews 13:14). Both neopuritanism and neocalvinism, and the wellsprings from which they arise, can make a valuable contribution to filling out this framework.
Thoughts?
Reader Comments (20)
I had never heard that distinction discussed before. I guess I would fall into the neo-puritan camp, even though I certainly recognize the need for a resurgent neo-calvinism. Thanks for pointing me to this.
I certainly don't know my history well enough to know for sure, but this description of neocalvinism sounds a lot like what the old Puritans would have believed. They were Calvinists and certainly maintained a cultural mandate. Historic Calvinists certainly also believed in a committed piety. Could it be that if Pennings definition is accurate, and convergence is now necessary, it is because the "neos" are both denying an aspect of their respectful histories?
Ken: Pennings says that both movements "affirm similar truths and appeal to the same sources" but one is slanted more to individual piety and church renewal, the other to corporate activism and cultural renewal. Maybe it's a difference in slant rather than belief. I'm not sure, but I get the impression that the slants where there in the past too. I'd love to learn more.
You can probably blame the Dutch. Since I am in the Reformed Church in America, I can say that. While the English Puritans had less trouble assimilating into the New World, the Dutch split both in the Old World and the New into two camps one stressing the pietistic strand and the other the cultural mandate. This resulted in different waves of Dutch immigration. Each successive wave bringing its own take upon the purpose of reformed theology. The ones settling into the East Coast tending to stress social involvement and the ones settling in the Midwest more focused on a private faith.
Dialogue is fine but how 'bout we first do this: 2 Chronicles 7 14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land. It's true
George: Spoken like a true neopuritan! You're right - but you also need the insights of the neocalvinists.
Almost thou persuadest me to be a Calvinist.... I guess I relate to both camps because to me, Faith is both an individual thing, AND we had better be trying to effect a cultural renewal. Now, throw in a little Charismaticism(?) in there and we'll talk.
Too many labels and too much talking, not enough doing.
Arthur: There are Calvinists who are Charismatics! (although they call themselves continuationists). George: I think you'd agree that there is room for both doing (obedience) and talking (theology). I think it would be unfortunate to argue for one without the other. Good theology leads to the right type of action.
I'm with George,... too many labels. Although, come to think of it, you can't really get away from labels, can you? Even "No Name" becomes a brand, doesn't it? Okay, then,... I'm still with George,... too much talking and not enough action.
George and Arthur: I don't want to be argumentative, really I don't! I understand and agree with your desire for action. My concern is that you seem to be saying, "Enough of this silly theological stuff. Let's just pray and obey." Unintentionally, you may be saying that theology just isn't that important. I don't think you mean to say that, but I just think we need to be careful. The issues raised in this article are fairly important. It's not an abstract discussion with no bearing on how we live. We need both talking about important theological issues and action.
Darryl, my Brother. I, for one, certainly do not intend to imply that discussion is merely an abstract exercise that has no merit. Discussing theology helps to formulate and consolidate whatever it is that forms the basis for what we believe and why we believe it. As my learned brother once pointed out to me: You cannot operate in a vacuum. How else does one come to believe except by hearing? The Bible points out that "Faith comes by Hearing,..." I enjoy a good discussion as much as anyone. My beliefs, my theology, have/has been shaped by discussing the Gospel and thus correcting any misconceptions, verifying valid points of Truth and establishing a solid foundation for living out my convictions. Discussion has proved far more valuable than many of the most profound sermons I have ever heard. What I am saying is this: There comes a time when discussion becomes an excuse for sitting on our collective, comfortable backsides and doing nothing more than padding our knowledge. Wasn't it Gandhi who said something about how we Christians have in our possession the most powerful Book in the world; the ideas and concepts contained therein capable of producing an explosion (in terms of cultural reformation) and yet we do almost nothing with it? I am merely advocating that, after all our discussion, we rise, stand on our feet, and WALK.
The labels certainly explain much of what is taking place in the blogosphere, where the two strands help identify the motivations of different writers, and where Calvinists are ubiquitous -- dominating the online world as they have print publishing -- to the point where it sometimes strikes me that more bandwidth is being used contending for Calvinism than contending for Jesus Christ.
Paul, you would have more knowledge of that than I, but I contend that there is way too much emphasis placed on labeling, (and hence division,) than on Love, (and hence unity.) Paul the Apostle spoke against similar forces back in his day: "I am of Paul; I am of Peter,..." Today we cry stridently, "I am Emergent; I am Traditional, I am Post-Modern; I am Calvinist; I am Charismatic," - which explains my tongue-in-cheek earlier comments. Some days I even hesitate to call myself a Christian! I know Whom I have believed, and Why. Now what I desire most is to get out of my pew and do something to impact those in my sphere of influence. I will be the first to admit MY impact may be minimal, but at least I am making an attempt, however small it may be.
Huh! Aren't I just the paragon of virtue? NOT!
Arthur says, "What I am saying is this: There comes a time when discussion becomes an excuse for sitting on our collective, comfortable backsides and doing nothing more than padding our knowledge." That's it right there, that would be my point Darryl. In the email to you, I referred you to James MacDonald's blog and I think this quote of his also applies here, "Hey, not just at our church but around the country as I travel . . . why does it seem that most of the people talk talk talking about reaching the culture are doing such a meager job of it. Why is it that from frustrated old college professors to angry young mega church haters, the vast majority of people waxing eloquent about their passion to penetrate the culture with the gospel are bearing such scanty, sparse, spartan, even scarce fruit? By fruit I mean actual living breathing men and women turning from sin and self and embracing Jesus Christ as Savior and Master of their souls." Since I started reading blogs way back(beginning with yours as Michael Coren had a link to your blog back then, think he still does?)I think it's so true that there is just so much talk and especially by those who are seeking something new and saying everything has to change and blah, blah, blah. Where is the fruit from those folks, where are the changed lives? I'm not seeing them. I'll limit the context to Toronto, all these people talking, where is the fruit, where can we look and say, wow, God is truly at work there, look at the changed lives. Where is that happening in a powerful way? It's not and the big question is, why is that? So much to say. Those who are talking and doing are not doing it God's way, it's all about social gospel for them, and lobbying gov't and all that. They want to help people but don't ever want to deal with the sin issue. Well, nothing will change that way, you will just enable people to remain where they are, just help them out a bit. But I'm hopeful, I believe God will do a new thing, I believe He will move in a powerful way to bring about changed lives for His glory. It begins with his people and I would suggest it does begin with His people taking seriously 2 Chron 7:14. Then as we go out to try to impact people's lives, the Holy Spirit will have free reign in us and His power will be revealed and then we will see that this is so true and we will seek Him for more and more. Not for our glory but for His. Ephesians 3:20 Now to him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us, 21 to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen." He does it through us but we got to do it His way.
Arthur says, "What I am saying is this: There comes a time when discussion becomes an excuse for sitting on our collective, comfortable backsides and doing nothing more than padding our knowledge." I absolutely agree. You might have misfired on this one though: the people engaged in this discussion are practitioners doing some important work. George: I'm encouraged by what's starting to happen in Toronto. It's early, but I'm excited by what I see starting to happen.
Darryl, there are always exceptions to the rule. I do not doubt for one minute that you, and many like you, who are engaged in this conversation ARE both neopuritan and neocalvinist, and ARE involved in doing, (emphasis on DOING,) important work. I'll ask you this one question though, if I may: How many members of any particular congregation are actually 1) Visiting the hospitals? 2) Feeding the widows and shut-ins? 3) Going into the prisons? 4) How about reaching out to their non-believing next door neighbour? 5) Doing anything other than going to two or three services in the local church per week? I'll grant you that there may be a few, but percentage-wise I'll bet the numbers are less than impressive. We cannot leave all the work to the Pastors and Leaders. The mandate was for ALL disciples: "Go into all the world,..." I can't go to Africa. I have a hard time even going to the next County, let alone China. But that little old guy in the coffee shop who always comes in alone? I can talk to him. That homeless guy who asked me for a coffee? That Muslim woman who was subjected to some nasty comments because of the way she dresses? That Chinese student who was reprimanded for talking to his friends in his own language instead of English? That man whose wife is now suffering from dementia and whose friends don't know what to say and so avoid him? Yeah, I can reach out to them instead of merely pretending the situation didn't happen. I can even try to make that sad little woman smile, and lighten her load. I am NOT a pastor. Don't ever want to be one. Most pastors, quite rightly, would not let me within a mile of their pulpit. I know squat about doctrinal positions or denominational issues. Thank God! Just let me do whatever I can to be a friend to the friendless. THAT is my niche. But I can't stand it when I hear the pew-warmers say, "I don't understand why the church isn't making a difference. Why do they allow these people to beg on the street? I don't get that guy,... he hasn't had a wash in weeks! Now, let's discuss this new Evangelical movement. Is it scriptural?"
Arthur: You are right in many of your comments. I'm trying to trace them back to what I posted, and I admit that I'm a bit lost as to how we got here. All I'll say at this point is that the type of discussion mentioned in the article is being fleshed out in some important ways, and this can lead to some of the changes you'd like to see at the local level. Not everyone is going to be a scholar, but we need the scholars to do theology in a way that can serve the church and ultimately lead to everyone else fulfilling their role as well. In short: the article I posted about is not in opposition to your desire to see the faith lived out. I'm quite sure it lines up nicely.
Absolutely! I wasn't disagreeing with you at all, or the article for that matter. Although my comment was a little tongue-in-cheek, I think I made myself clear when I said, "I guess I relate to both camps because to me, Faith is both an individual thing, AND we had better be trying to effect a cultural renewal." I think we got here from there because I jumped to George's defense. I may not be as radical as George, but non-action is one of my pet peeves. Another is labels, and yet another the lack of demonstrable Love. Sorry I high-jacked your post and got off topic.