A week ago, before all the computer problems started, a person made the following comment:
I also think there is a debate to be had regarding the form and function of institutions (Kuyper’s Sphere Sovereignty) – Church, State, Family, etc.
This comment fits nicely into the government series that I had started and was delayed by lightning. Of course, this makes one wonder whether there is an editor from on high that was concerned about my thoughts. 😯
OK, let me briefly explain what Kuyper’s Sphere Sovereignty is. An extremely gross oversimplification is that Prime Minister Abraham Kuyper of the Netherlands (b 1837 – d 1920) very strongly emphasized the Biblical phrase that each creature reproduces after its own kind and that each people was also meant to function that way, as was each area of life. He argued that each sphere of life (i.e. family, government, church, individual, country, agriculture, artistic expression, etc.) has its own area of competence within which it is sovereign, that is, it has the right to make decisions that should not be gainsaid by another sphere of life. One commentator says:
For instance, the different God-given norms for family life and economic life should be recognized, such that a family does not properly function like a business. Similarly, neither faith-institutions (e.g. churches) nor an institution of civil justice (i.e. the state) should seek totalitarian control, or any regulation of human activity outside their limited competence, respectively.
This idea has had a strong resonance in USA culture in particular. We love to talk about separation of Church and State, thus the idea of spheres that are sovereign in their area appeals superficially to many, even if they do not know from where the idea comes. But Kuyper has had many critics, I would argue that among them would be the Old Testament. Among the biggest criticism of Kuyper is that, as happened in the Netherlands, sphere sovereignty leads to a fragmentation of society, called pillarization in the Netherlands, in which each group has its own institutions such as schools, news media, hospitals, etc. As a result, the Netherlands is almost a confederacy that manifests, “a roughly tripartite ideological divide between Catholics, Protestants, and Humanists.”
I would point out that the British Muslim request that their groups be allowed to function under sharia law for certain issues is actually an application of sphere sovereignty in that they are arguing that within certain parameters the State should allow them to regulate their own internal life. Whenever you see a seminary in the USA (or elsewhere) arguing that they do not need State accreditation because they are a religious institution, they are arguing a form of sphere sovereignty. Of course, you are likely to find that you degree from one of those institutions is not likely to be recognized by anyone other than the small group that supports or agrees with that particular institution.
I pointed out the British Muslim example in order to point out that supporters of sphere sovereignty tend to agree with it only as long as they are using it to defend themselves. Thus, we cheer a Braveheart movie and speak eloquently about the right of the Scots to have their own currency and some of their own laws and even their own language. However, as with the British Muslim case, the moment another “sphere”, i.e. Muslims in Britain in this case, tries to argue that there are parts of their life in which they should be sovereign, suddenly we find many reasons why both the State and the Church should intervene to forbid them to express that sovereignty.
In the USA there have lately been to court decisions that should have gladdened the heart of every defender of the 10th Amendment and of sphere sovereignty, as they placed limits on the federal government. The reason that there is no rejoicing is because both of those decisions were decisions with which most conservatives do not agree. One federal judge struck down the Federal law that prohibited the federal government from paying benefits to domestic partners on the grounds that only the individual states have the legal right to define the legality of marriages and civil unions. Thus, the Federal government must now give full benefits to domestic partners in those states in which domestic partners have legal standing. Needless to say, this has quite shocked supporters of the 10th Amendment, who are against civil unions and who now must argue against all their previous arguments.
Kuyper was reacting against the old medieval Roman Catholic claim that the Church, through the Pope, had the right to speak decisively into every aspect of human life. He was also reacting against the statist claim that the State should have the right to speak decisively into every aspect of human life. Because many Protestants in the USA are so afraid of both Papism and statism, his solution looked wonderful.
But, that philosophy has many other problems, and one of the biggest ones is the Old Testament.
===MORE TO COME===
This seems relevant to my current reading. I’m going through Quenstedt’s The Church and Wilhelm Loehe’s Aphorisms on the New Testament Offices and their relationship to the congregation.
Quenstedt’s first thesis is:
“The whole group that the three hierarchical estates–ecclesiastical, political, and economical–form is called ecclesia.”
So to Quenstedt the church is composed of the Representative ecclesia or clergy, the state authorities, and the laity. These three hierarchical estates form the whole of ecclesia. All clergy must be elected by all three of these estates though through different means. This becomes especially problematic when the state authorities are heterodox; for instance, when female clergy are instituted by the state because of the particular government’s definition of human rights. One of the most important misapplications of this view has been within the former state churches (supposedly but obviously still under statencontrol) of Sweden and Finland where one must prove that they have received the sacraments by a female presbyter to be a candidate for ordination. Also, there have been ministers of the word thrown in jail for “hate speech”, in one case a pentecostal preacher was jailed for preaching on Romans chapter 1.
This normative view of early scholastic Lutheranism was already being highly criticized in Germany during the 19th century because of the mandate by the state that Reformed, Lutheran, and liberal clergy must enter into union with each other. Many Lutherans later termed “confessional Lutherans” could not accept altar and pulpit fellowship because of the Reformed and liberal denial of Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper and other doctrinal divergences. This is part of the reason the early leaders of the synod I belong to emigrated to America. Hence, Bovarian Pastor Wilhelm Loehe’s statement in aphorisms:
“In our Protestant churches of Germany the prince formerly pushed back both laity and clergy… To the extent that it influenced the Church, the division of the congregation into the three estates is a kind of human figment ti whose defense such glorious men as our older theologians ought never to have lent themselves.”
His criticism of this view is based on the assumption that the three estates were composed out of a modern sentiment and a few shoddy interpretations of sovereignty as found in the old testament. Whenever we try to base our view of state authority on the kings of the Old Testament we would be wise to remember that the people begged God for a king even though God pleaded with them to not accept the forms of government held by the gentiles. Christ later denounces authoritarian forms of government in Matthew’s Gospel chapter 25.
“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
I did some further thought work on Church and State on the 25 July post. But, the problem with Kuyper, with the early Lutherans, and so on is that they picture a static relationship between Church and State. However, when one looks at the Old Testament during its various phases, the post-Apostolic Church, and the post-Constantine Church, one sees a dynamic and changing relationship between Israel and the State and between Church and State. One cannot derive a simple set of sovereign spheres when one looks at the totality of the witness.