There is a guest post on the Faith and Theology blog today remembering John Stott, which focuses on Stott's strong belief that Christians must be engaged with the world around them. Stott would argue that Christians should follow Christ's call to be salt and light, seeking societal transformation in a world God loves.

The author of the post wonders why other evangelicals don't feel the same way. He points to something Tim Challies once wrote as a conclusion to a book review:

There is a time and a place for humanitarian work, no doubt. Christians can carry out great ministries serving the poor and the oppressed and in so doing can have remarkable opportunities to share the gospel. And yet still the history of Christianity shows that when Christians do this, the gospel quickly becomes secondary and the work itself becomes the gospel. I still see the Bible primarily emphasizing charity given to other believers; when I look at Acts and the epistles, this is what I see most—Christians helping other Christians as a sign of love and fraternity. Now of course there will be some who engage in humanitarian work outside the context of the local church, but it seems to me that the closer we come to making this a necessary part of the Christian mission, the more likely we are to see the gospel diminish.

I have two reasons for bringing this up. First, the author is right to critique evangelicalism's general avoidance of the calling Stott believed we all had. But second, he commits the error that has been committed by far too many people ever since that blasted TIME article came out a couple of years ago – he calls Challies a Neocalvinist.

Challies is not a neocalvinist. He is a New Calvinist. A Neocalvinist would never say what Challies has said above. 

Stop confusing the two!