Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
Reformed seminaries ought to understand Reformed political theology

Reformed seminaries ought to understand Reformed political theology

Last updated on: November 13, 2013 at 2:01 pm by Fred Clark

Reformed seminaries ought to understand Reformed political theology 2013-11-13T14:01:31-05:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

The good folks over at Internet Monk are reposting Michael Bird’s Aussie evangelical response to the reflexive antipathy white evangelicals in America show toward universal health care.

We discussed that here last week in a post called “American evangelicalism is defined by political tribalism.” Bird and British theologian N.T. Wright are both perplexed by how their fellow followers of Jesus arrive at — or, really, start from — a position opposed to universal health care. These guys would both meet any theological or doctrinal definition of “evangelical,” but they’re living, reading and writing from outside of the American cultural context. Since they don’t share the political tribalism that shapes and defines white evangelical Protestantism in the U.S., they’re startled and bewildered by its cruel callousness.

For a more polite rendition of that tribal, culturally conformed callousness, see Michael J. Kruger’s “Obamacare, N.T. Wright, and the Via Media.” Part of Kruger’s post is a critique of Wright’s instinctive seeking of the “middle ground” — always seeming to seek some place to stand betwixt the liberals and conservatives. Fair enough — that’s often true of Wright, but as Bird notes, Wright is Anglican, and “ever since the Elizabethan Act of Uniformity (1558), via media is how we Anglicans roll.” Criticizing an Anglican for a via media approach is like criticizing a Catholic for being hierarchical — it’s true, but, well, duh.

The really surprising thing about Kruger’s post is that Kruger is a Reformed theologian. He teaches, and serves as president, at the Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte. Yet Kruger seems wholly unfamiliar with, and wholly ignorant of, Reformed political theology.

That’s more shocking than the credulous falsehoods Kruger swallows and regurgitates as his talking points against universal health care:

Nationalized healthcare is fundamentally on the left side of the political landscape and constitutes a clear move towards a more socialist mode of governance. It is a monumental government power-grab of almost 20 percent of the U.S. economy.

Keep yer gubmint outta Michael Kruger’s Medicare!

The political tribalism shaping the white evangelicalism of folks like Kruger tends to leave them factually challenged, so it’s not surprising that Kruger doesn’t understand what he’s talking about. He imagines some sort of pristine free market in health insurance prior to Obamacare, apparently never having glimpsed the vast kludgeocratic mess of state and federal programs, subsidies, credits and regulations that this new, improved kludgeocratic mess is replacing. (That’s the more charitable interpretation. It seems kinder to Kruger to assume he didn’t know the U.S. was providing a $250 billion-a-year tax subsidy for employer health coverage, rather than to assume that Kruger only opposes subsidies for the working poor but not for corporations.)

Kruger’s ignorance of the existence of Europe’s Christian democratic parties and their long championing of universal health care — a fight often influenced by Reformed and Catholic political theology — is also shocking for the head of a Reformed seminary:

Wright tries to temper this reality by pointing out that “every other developed country” has nationalized healthcare, implying that American needs to get with the program. But, the fact that America stands alone does not invalidate its approach. Historically speaking, America has always been distinctive from the rest of the globe in precisely this area, namely its commitment towards economic freedom for its citizens, with limited government intervention. One might make the opposite of Wright’s point, namely that what makes America great is its willingness to not join the European socialist program.

“Historically speaking,” Kruger doesn’t know his hat from his hindquarters. If he thinks the many Reformed Christian parties of Europe are part of a “socialist program,” I’d hate to think what he’d make of Calvin’s Geneva.

Michael Kruger does not care for the European socialist schemes of European socialists like Margaret Thatcher, who was European. And therefore socialist.

Let’s be generous, though. Kruger is clearly way out of his depth. He’s a New Testament scholar, and I’m sure he know more about the New Testament than, say, Ezra Klein. Sure Kruger is embarrassingly wrong about the details, reality and history of health care in America and in Europe, and, yes, it would be prudent for him not to sound off on subjects he’s so proudly ignorant about, but if the folks at the Kaiser Foundation ever put out a report on the Synoptic Problem, I bet it would come off just as ignorant and amateurish as Kruger’s attempt to pontificate in their area of expertise.

Still, though, Reformed political theology is not a secret. It’s kind of a big deal. I studied it at a Baptist seminary under a Mennonite professor. It’s one of the few areas where I can find a genuine holy envy of my Calvinist brothers and sisters. I find Calvinist atonement talk monstrous, I think TULIP is an incoherent mess, and I think they’ve barely begun to grasp the way that E.P. Sanders and the new perspective on Paul swept away the ground on which Luther and Calvin built much of their theology, leaving the whole thing suspended, like Wile E. Coyote, over open air above a precipice. (I suspect that last point, by the way, is what motivates much of Kruger’s antipathy toward Wright.) But yet I find Reformed political theology — particularly the whole Kuyperian school of European socialists — to be elegant, constructive and immensely helpful.

I appreciate that political theology is the unwanted stepchild in seminaries. You can’t get a seminary degree without studying, say, Pauline christology, but you can easily graduate without ever having even heard of subsidiarity or sphere sovereignty. Fair enough. Seminaries are training pastors, not prophets. But those pastors are serving congregations made up of citizens and neighbors who have to live as citizens and neighbors. They need more than just sound exegesis, and the whole of theology and Christian political/ethical teaching provides something they need. Seminaries should be teaching political theology too.

Or, at the very least, seminaries ought to be run by people who acknowledge its existence — people who aren’t so woefully ignorant of political theology that they could write something like this:

But third, and most problematic, Wright defends nationalized healthcare on the grounds that “Christians taught that we should care for the poor and disadvantaged.” While I certainly agree this is a Christian value, how does that fact lead one to conclude that the government should be the body doing it? This simply does not follow. Historically, it was Christians caring for the poor and disadvantaged and not the government!

Sweet holy Dooyeweerd that’s some shameful nonsense.

I’ve come to expect this kind of immature ignorance from nondenominational white evangelicals who are wholly cut off from the rich traditions of Christian political thought, but to see the president of a Reformed seminary parroting this idea of social responsibility as a zero-sum competition is really disheartening.

In Christian political teaching social responsibility is always differentiated, mutual and complementary. It is never exclusive, binary or competitive. In Reformed theology, social responsibility is always differentiated, mutual and complementary. It is never exclusive, binary or competitive.

When you see a Reformed theologian suggesting otherwise, you know without checking that this person is an American and that what they’re saying is not the product of Reformed or Christian teaching, but merely the latest talking points of the political allegiance that defines their tribal identity.

Previous Post

November 13, 2013

Dear Capt. Stubing: All TV theme songs are about Jesus

Next Post

November 13, 2013 Haiti should not be the model for America's future

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month November 2026 October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does the Hebrew word 'Shekinah' mean?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Divine Presence God’s Glory Holy Fire Everlasting Light