Neocalvinism's arch-nemesis, the New Pantagruel, has closed up shop. Additionally, editor Dan Knauss published an open letter to Comment as a response to Dr. Wolters' essay concerning Neocalvinism, recently published in the print edition of the journal.

I have, at least for today, decided to consider for the first time in my Christian life that maybe, just maybe, it might be necessary to develop a political philosophy. I come to this task with the fear that I could become something that I despise and that something is becoming a partisan. From my perspective there is nothing that has harmed the witness of the church more than political partisanship.

It is possible that the word partisan is not the right word. What I so loath is the emotion-ridden belief that those who hold a different view of policy are either stupid and irrational or immoral. So often a person?s policy views are translated by the opposition into a judgment of a person?s moral character that does not necessarily follow. Can a person hold a view that supports advocacy for the illegal immigrant and still be pro-American? Can a person hold a view that supports homosexual rights to marry and still see homosexuality as morally wrong? Can a person believe in the separation of church and state and be against government funding of faith based institutions and still believe that Jesus is Lord of All? In each of these examples, if one holds a view contrary to the mainstream of the church, one could be seen as fighting for the wrong team. This is partisanship. Might one, like myself, hold a political philosophy that defends the civil liberties of all Americans and still be fighting for God?s will in all of life? Might I hold a political philosophy that articulates that people are free to pursue happiness any way they please so long as it doesn?t interfere with the rights of others? Dare I, as a Christian, develop a political philosophy that sees all legislation of morality as an establishment of religion by means of law and, therefore, contrary to the establishment of the kingdom by grace alone?

Another possibility is that I develop a particular view of human flourishing and come to believe that all the institutions of life ought to promote this understanding, a biblical understanding, of human flourishing. From this standpoint, one not of civil liberties but of a biblical understanding of human nature, could I develop what really is not a liberal democratic view of government at all? Is it possible that the human story shows that as cultures sanction the normalcy of certain behaviors that these cultures self-destruct? What if I develop a learned view of history which convinces me of the need to use government to regulate human insanity in the realms of racism, nationalism, sexual behaviors, and anti-Semitic and anti-Christian bigotry?

What about the role of government indoctrination with respect to religious relativism and sexual norms? What does a citizen do when the government considers it necessary to indoctrinate a philosophy regarding self-esteem, sexuality, gender, and many other issues which constitutes a worldview contrary to mine and even contrary to common sense? How can a political philosophy answer such questions as what is the proper bounds of the curriculum of the public school?

How does my religious understanding of the kingdom inform this philosophy? I believe in a morally beautiful church, but is Jesus only working to build His church or is He using government to build His kingdom as well? Where do we look for such answers? Is political philosophy an issue to be discovered through the study of special revelation or general revelation? Do the classics inform my political philosophy or the bible or both?

Lastly, is such wisdom even relevant to the kingdom? Is politics a huge diversion to kingdom advancement? Or is politics an important realm of Christian activism? Is the fact that Christians are becoming politically active a reason to develop a political philosophy for the sole purpose of arguing for Christian disengagement from political activism in the name of Christ?

Or is the fact that politics is so central to the life of the non-Christian and because Christians have become engaged, has this development requires the missionary in the America to be able to discuss these topics with some nuance and understanding of the various camps within the culture and within the church? Does the Christian need to know where he or she stands politically?

Personally, as a poor beggar who is just trying to show another beggar where to find bread, I have avoided politics as simply off topic, but, of late, I have been in relationship with people of many stripes and feel obligated to contemplate these questions. Thus, a journey into the development of a political philosophy has come to me and asked for answers.

Do you know where you stand and why? Are you partisan in your attitude to those, especially other Christians, who differ in their views of proper policy? Do you study the classics or the bible or both? Are you more libertarian or do you see the realm of politics as a possible realm for developing a righteous society? As we continue to ask these questions, I hope the Christian community can be gracious towards myself and others as we dialogue, reflect, and eventually arrive at conclusions. And in so doing, I hope we discover the way of Jesus in these times of change.

Cross posted at: 21st Century Reformation

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?

As the Crunchy Con blog winds down at the National Review Online, I've been wondering--where is the Neocalvinist discussion about Dreher's book? Gideon Strauss first mentioned Rod Dreher's original "crunchy cons" article on NRO (the article that spawned the book), but I've seen no discussion of the book, or the blog, among the usual suspects. I wonder if the discussion is a bit too Catholic for most Neocals (Dreher himself is Catholic, and most of the contributors to the blog are either Catholic, Orthodox, or part of the more magisterial Presbyterian traditions)? Or is it because these traditionalist conservatives (in their many guises) advocate something less than the principled pluralism and cultural engagement that so many Neocals espouse? Dreher concludes the book by examing the Benedict option--that is, where do we go from here? Do we, like Benedict during the fall of the Roman Empire, head for the hills preserve what is good and holy? Or do we stand where we are, resisting the disorders of the age with our "little platoons?" And if we stay and resist, what is the most effective mean of resistence? Do we "construct new enclaves of civility and order", or do we set out to reform culture and society, seeing God's created order?

Well, it's been a while.

Here's a question for you. When we're discussing/in dialogue, what should our goal be?

As you likely know, I'm focused on apologetics, primarily. I'm Evangelical.

The more conversations I have with non-Christians, the more I'm struck by how little people know about Christians in general, Evangelicals in specific, and fundamentalists in practice. Not the straw man "fundie", but actual, real live fundamentalists, who adhere to the "fundamental" doctrines.

I'm wondering - how would we go about informing opinions, and discouraging the sweeping generalizations? As I'm sure you've heard, in theory, he who defines the terms of the debate usually wins it. Why do we allow others to define what Evangelical means? It's pretty entrenched, now - but what do we do about it now?

The New Pantagruel has published a handful of essays, fiction, and poems. Dan Knauss traces the history of humanism and Daniel Larison examines the current state of Conservatism. Larison contends that contemporary Conservatism has made mistaken compromises with Enlightenment liberalism, and in order to truly be counter-cultural, it must shed these compromises and re-embrace early Christian culture and thought.

Rod Dreher's book, Crunchy Cons hits the shelves today, and the National Review has created a blog to facilitate discussion of Dreher's ideas. Pantagruelist Caleb Stegall will be one of the contributors, and he has already added to discussion by contending that crunchy conservatism isn't necessary, but is an authentic conservative response to the disorders of the age. Also, Dreher includes the Crunchy Con's manifesto, worth reprinting here:

1. We are conservatives who stand outside the conservative mainstream; therefore, we can see things that matter more clearly.

2. Modern conservatism has become too focused on money, power, and the accumulation of stuff, and insufficiently concerned with the content of our individual and social character.

3. Big business deserves as much skepticism as big government.

4. Culture is more important than politics and economics.

5. A conservatism that does not practice restraint, humility, and good stewardship?especially of the natural world?is not fundamentally conservative.

6. Small, Local, Old, and Particular are almost always better than Big, Global, New, and Abstract.

7. Beauty is more important than efficiency.

8. The relentlessness of media-driven pop culture deadens our senses to authentic truth, beauty, and wisdom.

9. We share Russell Kirk?s conviction that ?the institution most essential to conserve is the family.?

10. Politics and economics won?t save us; if our culture is to be saved at all, it will be by faithfully living by the Permanent Things, conserving these ancient moral truths in the choices we make in our everyday lives.

Joe Carter points us to this post by Emergent guru Brian McLaren regarding the pastoral response to homosexuality. I was going to post my thoughts, but Joe (and Baus, in the comments thread) do a fine job of voicing my critiques. From Carter's comments:

When we have sold out Scripture in order to join the "conversation" we have lost our saltiness. When we have pastors that refuse to call sinners to repentance but prefer a "moratorium on making pronouncements" we are not fit even for the dunghill. When we have lost our ability to act as a preservative in a decaying culture we can no longer be the "salt of the earth." When we refuse to take a stand against sin, we become nothing more than saltless servants of our culture.