By Garry J. Moes

 

Neo-Calvinism is no tame, cloistered theology confined to church walls or academic ivory towers. It is a roaring declaration of Christ’s sovereign dominion over every square inch of creation, a clarion call for His people to take up their divine commission as stewards of the world. Rooted in the teachings of Dutch theologian and statesman Abraham Kuyper (1837–1920), this movement refuses to accept the false divide between the sacred and the secular. It demands that every facet of life—government, education, science, the arts, and even the marketplace—be brought under the lordship of Christ.

​​

(NOTE: The Neo-Calvinism of which we speak here is not to be confused with the "New Calvinist" movement of 21st century, also known as the Young, Restless, and Reformed Movement, led by such men as John Piper, Mark Driscoll, Paul Washer, John MacArthur, Mark Dever, Al Mohler, Justin Taylor, et al.)

​

At the core of historic Neo-Calvinism stands the doctrine of sphere sovereignty, the divine order by which God has established distinct realms—family, church, state, business—each possessing its own authority and responsibility. No sphere has the right to encroach upon another, for each answers directly to the King of kings. Where modern man sees power struggles and competing interests, the Neo-Calvinist sees a divinely orchestrated symphony, if only the instruments would play their intended parts.

​

Yet this world, ravaged by the effects of sin, is not a neutral battleground. Neo-Calvinism proclaims the antithesis—the irreconcilable clash between the kingdom of God and the rebellion of fallen man. This is no mere intellectual exercise but a reality that shapes how Christians live, think, and engage with the world. The believer walks among the ruins of Eden, but he does not despair. He labors in the confidence that God’s common grace still pulses through the world, restraining evil and allowing even the unregenerate to produce beauty, order, and knowledge. The Christian, therefore, neither isolates himself in monastic withdrawal nor compromises with the spirit of the age but takes his stand as an agent of redemption.

​

This leads to the cultural mandate, that ancient decree from the dawn of creation: “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it.” Neo-Calvinism revives this charge, calling believers to engage culture, not abandon it; to shape institutions, not surrender them; to build, not to retreat. Whether in politics, education, science, or the arts, the Christian must work to reclaim and reform every domain of human life according to God’s truth.

​

This vision is no mere abstraction but a force that has reshaped history. Abraham Kuyper, embodying these principles, founded the Anti-Revolutionary Party in the Netherlands, wielding political power to uphold biblical governance. He established the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (Free University of Amsterdam), proving that education need not be severed from faith but should be grounded in it. Later thinkers like Herman Dooyeweerd and Cornelius Van Til carried forward the Neo-Calvinist banner, refining its implications in philosophy and apologetics.

​

Neo-Calvinism is a battle cry against the dual errors of secularism and a privatized, retreatist faith. It declares that Christ reigns not only over the church but over the classroom, the courtroom, the newsroom, and the halls of government. The call is clear: Christians must cease their timid handwringing and take up their role as ambassadors of the kingdom, pushing back the darkness until the day the King returns to claim what is rightfully His.

​

Critics of Neo-Calvinism come from various theological perspectives, including traditional Calvinists, fundamentalists, and even some evangelicals and Roman Catholics. Their critiques generally fall into several categories:

​

1. Overemphasis on Cultural Engagement

​

Some critics argue that Neo-Calvinism places too much emphasis on transforming culture at the expense of the gospel’s primary mission: saving souls. They worry that the movement shifts the focus from personal salvation and discipleship toward social and political activism.

​

Critics from the Reformed tradition (such as some Westminster Seminary theologians) argue that Kuyperianism can lead to a "cultural gospel" that prioritizes societal change over personal conversion.

​

Fundamentalists reject Neo-Calvinism’s engagement with secular institutions, preferring a separatist approach that views the world as fundamentally hostile and beyond redemption until Christ returns.

​

2. The Danger of Common Grace Leading to Compromise

​

Neo-Calvinism’s doctrine of common grace (the idea that God bestows gifts such as beauty, wisdom, and moral insight even to unbelievers) has been controversial among stricter Calvinists. Some believe it can lead to a naive optimism about secular culture, potentially fostering theological compromise.

​

Herman Hoeksema, founder of the Protestant Reformed Churches in America (PRCA), was a vocal critic of common grace. He argued that it diminished the radical divide between the elect and the reprobate and could lead Christians to embrace worldly influences uncritically.

​

The PRCA and other hyper-Calvinist groups reject the idea that unbelievers can contribute anything of lasting value to culture, insisting that all human efforts outside of Christ are ultimately worthless.

​

3. The "Two Kingdoms" Objection

​

Some Reformed theologians argue that Neo-Calvinism oversteps biblical boundaries by seeking to redeem cultural institutions rather than recognizing the distinction between the "kingdom of God" and the "kingdom of man." They hold to a Two Kingdoms Theology, which teaches that:

• The church should focus on spiritual matters (preaching, sacraments, discipline).

• The state and other secular institutions operate under natural law, not direct Christian influence.

 

David VanDrunen, a proponent of Two Kingdoms theology, has written extensively against Kuyperianism, arguing that it blurs the lines between the church and the broader world.

​

Michael Horton, while sympathetic to some Kuyperian ideas, also warns that Neo-Calvinism can lead to dominionism, where Christians seek political and cultural power rather than focusing on gospel proclamation.

​

4. The Risk of Theocracy or "Dominionism"

​

Some evangelicals and secular critics fear that Neo-Calvinism leans toward theocratic ideals, where Christian principles are imposed on society through government and law. While Kuyper himself advocated for pluralism, later Neo-Calvinists have sometimes been accused of pursuing Christian nationalism or a soft theocracy.

Critics from the secular left argue that Neo-Calvinists in politics seek to enforce Christian values on public life, disregarding religious liberty.

​

Some within Roman Catholic and Anglican circles see Neo-Calvinism as too revolutionary, arguing that it lacks respect for traditional societal structures and instead seeks to reconstruct them entirely.

​

5. Neo-Calvinism and Postmodernism

​

Some Reformed critics believe that Neo-Calvinism’s emphasis on cultural engagement has led to an embrace of postmodern philosophy, particularly in areas of philosophy and the arts. Thinkers like Herman Dooyeweerd and his successors have been accused of making too much room for human subjectivity, undermining classical Reformed commitments to absolute truth.

​

Carl Trueman, a historian of Reformed thought, has warned that certain strands of Neo-Calvinism have led to an over-contextualization of Christianity, weakening doctrinal convictions in favor of cultural accommodation.

​

While Neo-Calvinism has inspired a movement of Christians engaging with culture in profound ways, its critics caution against compromising gospel priorities, blurring church-state distinctions, and being overly optimistic about culture’s redemption. Some argue for a more withdrawn approach, while others emphasize the dangers of wielding political and cultural influence too aggressively.

​

Neo-Calvinism, as articulated by Abraham Kuyper and his successors, is not without its detractors, but many of their critiques misunderstand or misrepresent its core principles. Let’s address these criticisms one by one.

​

1. Does Neo-Calvinism Overemphasize Cultural Engagement?

​

Critics argue that Neo-Calvinism shifts the focus away from personal salvation and discipleship toward societal transformation. However, this is a false dichotomy. Neo-Calvinism does not replace the gospel’s call to individual salvation; rather, it recognizes that the lordship of Christ extends beyond personal piety into every sphere of life. The Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20) is not merely about individual conversion but about discipling nations, teaching them to obey all of Christ’s commands.

​

The New Testament itself demonstrates that faith has cultural consequences. Paul’s ministry affected economies (Acts 19:23-41), civic order (Acts 16:35-40), and even legal structures (Philemon). If the gospel does not shape how Christians engage politics, education, and business, then it has surrendered ground to secularism.

​

2. Does Common Grace Lead to Compromise?

​

The concern that common grace might lead Christians to embrace worldly influences uncritically is a legitimate caution—but not an indictment of Neo-Calvinism itself. Kuyper never argued that common grace makes unbelievers spiritually neutral or trustworthy guides in matters of truth. Rather, he acknowledged that even in a fallen world, God restrains sin and allows non-believers to contribute to human flourishing through art, science, government, and philosophy.

​

Romans 1 affirms that unbelievers suppress the truth, but Romans 2 acknowledges that the law is written on their hearts. The biblical examples of Joseph in Egypt, Daniel in Babylon, and Paul before Roman authorities demonstrate that believers can interact with and even work within pagan structures without capitulating to them. The problem is not common grace; the problem is when Christians fail to critically evaluate culture through the lens of Scripture.

​

3. Does Neo-Calvinism Blur the Two Kingdoms Distinction?

​

Two Kingdoms theologians like David VanDrunen argue that Neo-Calvinism oversteps biblical boundaries by seeking to transform society rather than recognizing a sharp distinction between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of man. However, Kuyperianism does not deny that distinction—it simply rejects the idea that secular culture is a neutral or separate domain outside of Christ’s rule.

​

Jesus declared in Matthew 28:18, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” There is no biblical warrant for dividing life into sacred and secular realms where Christ rules one but not the other. Neo-Calvinism affirms that the church as an institution has a distinct mission, but individual Christians, as ambassadors of Christ, are called to manifest His reign in every area of life.

​

The Two Kingdoms model often leads to a passive Christianity that cedes culture to unbelievers, while Neo-Calvinism calls for faithful Christian engagement without seeking to merge church and state. Kuyper himself was a proponent of pluralism, not theocracy—his model allowed for a society where multiple religious perspectives could coexist under a framework that acknowledged divine sovereignty.

​

4. Does Neo-Calvinism Promote Theocracy or Dominionism?

​

Some critics fear that Neo-Calvinism advocates for a form of Christian nationalism or soft theocracy. This is a misunderstanding. Kuyper explicitly rejected the idea of a state church or forced Christian rule. Instead, he argued for a pluralistic society where different worldviews could compete in the public square.

​

Neo-Calvinism does not seek to impose Christianity through coercion but rather to persuade and shape culture through faithful Christian witness. The biblical model is not medieval Christendom but Daniel in Babylon, Joseph in Egypt, and Paul in Rome—engaging the world while remaining distinct from it.

​

It is secularism, not Neo-Calvinism, that has imposed a theocratic vision—one in which the state dictates morality without reference to God. Neo-Calvinists seek to counteract this by restoring the proper sphere sovereignty of family, church, and civil government under God’s law.

​

5. Has Neo-Calvinism Opened the Door to Postmodernism?

​

Some critics claim that Neo-Calvinist thinkers like Herman Dooyeweerd opened the door to postmodern relativism by emphasizing the role of presuppositions in shaping human thought. However, Neo-Calvinism is deeply opposed to postmodernism’s denial of absolute truth.

​

Dooyeweerd’s philosophy does not promote relativism but acknowledges that all human knowledge is shaped by one’s worldview. This is not a weakness but a strength—it provides a robust defense against secular claims to “neutral” reasoning. Cornelius Van Til, influenced by Kuyperian thought, developed presuppositional apologetics, which asserts that all worldviews are built on faith-based assumptions, and only the Christian worldview can provide the necessary foundation for knowledge, morality, and logic.

​

Rather than embracing postmodernism, Neo-Calvinism provides the tools to confront and dismantle it.

​

The Strength of Neo-Calvinism

​

Neo-Calvinism is not perfect, but its critics often misunderstand its principles or fail to offer a more compelling alternative. It does not replace gospel proclamation with social activism but expands the gospel’s implications into all areas of life. It does not lead to compromise with the world but calls for a distinctly Christian engagement with culture. It does not blur the lines between church and state but restores biblical categories of authority. It does not lead to theocracy but defends religious freedom while resisting secular encroachments on Christian life.

​

The question is not whether Christians will influence culture, but whether they will do so consciously and faithfully, or allow secularism to dictate the terms of engagement. Neo-Calvinism refuses to surrender ground that rightfully belongs to Christ, insisting instead that the Christian life is a holistic calling—one in which every sphere of existence must be brought into submission to the lordship of Jesus Christ.