The volume provides good contributions for a comparison of the two traditions in a variety of specific fields of interest, ranging from liturgy to economics. The contributions are well-informed and scholarly deep.
The pros are definitely prevailing on the cons. Actually, the latter are reduced, in my opinion, to a few clarifications that I miss and could have been provided by the editors, in the Introduction.
It would have been desirable to know something about the borders of neo-Calvinism. Does it include whatever Calvinism produced following Kuyper or only a special branch of it? What are the traits that allow an author or movement to be included within neo-Calvinism? Does the latter include Radical Orthodoxy (as seems unlikely to me yet taken for granted in the essay by Sherrad, from p. 235)?
Does neo-Calvinism include reformational philosophy? If so, why is the latter not featured decently in the volume? Given the fact that Thomism and neo-Thomism are theological AND philosophical movements, if we want to compare them fairly with neo-Calvinism, is it not necessary to bring reformational philosophy to the fore? Concerning the ground motive of nature and grace, is it plausible to consult Van Til and Bavink without bringing Dooyeweerd into the discussion?
True, the volume appears within the series “Studies in Reformed Theology,” and most of the authors are theologians. However, some of the essays do tackle philosophical, economic, social, and political issues. A common assumption behind most contributions (including the Introduction by the Editors) seems to be that whenever a topic is tackled from a Christian perspective, we have a theological discourse.
For example, essays concerning the natural sciences are discussed in the section “Theological Interaction with the (Modern) World” (p. v). Essays on economics, politics, social pluralism, and capitalism are discussed in the section “Christian Ethics and Moral Theology” (p. vi). Bob Goudzwaard, Christian economist and politician, has provided a “theological evaluation” of capitalism (p. 13). Space limits do not allow me to offer many more examples.
I’m not arguing that theology cannot tackle economic or political issues. But then the editors should have helped the audience to sort out one more question about borders: what is the difference between a theological perspective and a political, economic, or social perspective?
