The Cultural Priorities for Neocalvinists in our Time.

So Gideon Strauss drops me a line in my comments. I suspect he is seeding the conversation – hoping for a broader interaction.

Over at my blog I am wondering: "It is [...] important to have a vigorous dialogue over the medium-term cultural purposes of such a movement: How do we want to change the world? What difference do we want to make to the common life, in the public square, in service of our neighbours? How does the long-long-term messianic cause of the Reign of God - Pro Rege - translate into particular historical responsibilities in our own generation, and the next few generations?" I would be delighted to hear what you think are the cultural priorities for neocalvinists in our time.

I guess I am still reeling from my November defeat, and still trying to work out my own position as embattled opposition to so much of what I see in what Strauss calls a “time of rising Christian cultural power, of which the new confidence of the present generation of doctrinally orthodox young people is evidence.” If the “faith and values” vote is seen as evidence that cultural change is on its way – I don’t feel much comfort. I continue to be challenged by the vision of classical political liberalism, while ashamed of its more raw contemporary libertine extreme. I continue to be leery of what I see as greed and a resistance to values present in contemporary neo-conservative politics, resistance to libertarian anti state behavior. I’m glad that Chuck Colson and Hugh Hewitt don’t make Dr Strauss’s list of NeoCal public intellectuals – even though they fit some of the description: Individuals as having “not only a set of unconnected opinions, but a clearly articulated and consistent point of view. And this point of view cannot be uncommitted on the issues of the day […], but must promote a cause of some kind - a vision for the renewal (or preservation) of culture”. Mine is simply a much different vision for the renewal of that culture, a vision that seems to have so much credibility within the new generation of the orthodox young. I am also somewhat inured to the whole Neo-Calvinist super-heroes notion because I’m not looking for large culture wide changes. I’m looking for change in my neighborhood and in my church. I realized several years ago that I did not desire an audience of influence any wider than the local church. At one point my vision had been the public intellectual, the academic or the journalist – but when I became an elder – I realized that the only audience I wanted was local. I guess that having a neo-calvinist who regularly wrote columns for the NYT or appeared on the talk show circuit would be nice – but I don’t think it would change the course of battle in the neighborhood where I live. But practically - what sort of cultural priorities should the neocalvinist have in our neighborhoods and in our churches? What does it mean to continue living reformationally in constant interaction both with the texts that are our world and our word. Several items come to mind.

1. Cross Cultural Contextualization: I want my church to be able to speak to the varied folk within our culture. People of different race and different hair color. I want the gospel to be spoken into the breath of culture that our country is beginning to represent. I don’t want to hide behind a “Christian America” or believe that middle class values must be normative – yet I want to bring the reformational values of the gospel into interaction with the breadth of cultural expression our country has become.
2. Justice: I want a church to be engaged politically with the cause of the oppressed. This usually takes place in very local means in the context of diaconal ministry and concern for the poor. But in my mind it means approaching my political decisions taking the benefit of the impoverished as primary. This has two very significant macro political implications for me. I will not be party to the ownership culture that is being implemented in this country because of its removal of a safety net for the poor. Secondly I will not be party to the abandon of a constraining function of government on the greed and ruthless depersonalization that is the contemporary corporation. See David Koyzis on this.
3. Care for the Earth: I am not a “love your mother” sort of tree hugger – but I do believe that part of truly reformational understanding of the interaction between this world and the new world is that we must care for this world. We must not be party to the wanton destruction of this world. We must not live as though our being here is temporary and insignificant. (Thanks to N.T. Wright on exposing the fallacies of the Left Behind series).

I’m sure much is left out of this discussion, and maybe I fall victim to what Mr Stegall critiques about Charlie Peacock - that I'm talking more about a "post-modern emerging lifestyle evangelicalism that is not rooted in anything remotely resembling historical Protestantism or remotely partaking of its historical resources." More study to be done.