Those who pursue the Benedict Option basically reject the post-modern culture of our times. They would set up their own counterculture through communities that submit themselves to distinctive Christian practices, especially prayer.
Neo-Calvinists would take the opposite approach of trying to reform the political process of a country to support religious institutions.
The best representative of this Neo-Calvinist effort was Abraham Kuyper, a theologian, church leader, and politician active in the Netherlands in the decades before and after 1900. A minister and journalist by occupation, he had the forceful personality that could win political office. He served as Prime Minister from 1901 to 1905.
As a theologian, Kuyper was a leader in the Neo-Calvinist movement. That movement rejected the notion that theoretical thought can be religiously neutral. Jesus’ Lordship extends through every area and aspect of life – it is not restricted to the sphere of the church or of personal piety. All of life is to be redeemed.
Neo-Calvinism is an offshoot of classic Calvinism, initiated by theologian and pastor John Calvin, who did his work about a generation after Martin Luther. Many in this movement preferred the name Reformed over Calvinism because the emphasis was on Reformed living. For Luther, the Reformation was about reforming churches. Calvin promoted reformed living.
In Geneva, Calvin helped establish a reformed government based on a Protestant confession of faith where both church and state worked to serve and glorify God. Following the guidelines of his Institutes of the Christian Religion published in 1537, Calvin advocated compulsory church attendance, universal primary education, and the removal of all Catholic customs such as fasting, church hierarchy, or prayers for the dead.
Calvin’s approach led to the invitation for him to come and develop Reformed living in Geneva. What emerged was called by many the Geneva Theocracy. There, John Calvin established rules that clarified the standards for Reformed living. There were penalties for failing to comply. Usually, this was expulsion from the city, but sometimes the violations resulted in execution. Admittedly, at that time Lutheranism could also mean execution to those who denied some of the basics of the churches in that principality. The norm at that time was that whoever ruled the kingdom could define what the churches there had to believe and practice.
Basic to the practice of Calvin’s worldview is to have an influence on the government of that country. In the American experience, fourteen presidents of the USA were Presbyterian/Reformed and four were Baptists, who share the same Calvinist worldview. Indeed, these presidents did have influence in a time when America had what many called civic religion, which had Calvinist flavors
My point in these observations is that Calvinists did have some political influence prior to the 1980s. They have had almost none since.
Is the Neo-Calvin Option a realistic possibility for living as a Christian in the emerging Post-Modern culture? Not really. Is there an option between these two opposite positions of Benedict and New Calvinists? Yes. Consider the Luther Option.
What do you think of the Neo-Calvinist effort to promote Christian behavior through government action? Will such efforts have much success in Post-Modern times?
I see little chance of this happening in our country. While many Christians would love to see government enforcement of Godly values it appears that the power (influence & money) lies in the hands of the non-believers. They are well entrenched in our media and education system. They are well equipped to do battle in our court system using our Constitution to defend their position.
There was a time not that long ago where government tightly monitored and controlled what was said & shown in the media. There were, and still are many laws on the books that served to define proper sexual practices even between a husband & wife. Many of these laws were abolished or just simply ignored. Our society has changed so much that when some of these laws are read today we find them totally ridiculous. Most, if not all of these were based on strong Godly principles. Now it seems even the absurd has become part of the new normal.
The impact of these extremes is becoming more evident and this is why more and more Christians feel the government needs to apply the “moral breaks” if you will.
While we certainly need to be praying for Godly people in political office making decisions that encourage people to find & follow His ways we cannot sit back and wait for this to happen. We are called by Jesus to bring the good news to all the people so that they may be transformed for His glory.
Yes, it is hard not to want to get into the politics. But that we do as individuals, not as churches. In a way, I am glad the society is shifting away from traditions and traditionally moralilty. It makes us believers more carefully define who we are and what our distinctive ethos is. It will move many beyond cultural faith to convictional faith.
Is there a difference between neo-calvinism (Kuyper) and new calvinism (Piper, Mohler, Sproul) in the way they approach this topic?
Good question. I don’t know enough about Piper and Sproul to know their stance over against a national culture that has lost its Christian orientation. They did their work before this national shift to this now-dominant national culture. The lead issue today is same sex relationships. I don’t know how they handle that. They are conservative and could not support the LGBT agenda. But are they obnoxious about it, like many fundamentalists?