Government, Church, and relationships

Let’s recap, a lot of very conservative Americans have bought into a concept proposed by Abraham Kuyper at the beginning of the 20th century. That concept is that each facet of human life has its own “sphere of influence” within which it is sovereign and capable of acting without interference from other spheres of influence. While recognizing that there are areas of overlap, the theory is that while the government may overlap with the Church in some areas and with the family in others, and so on, there are parts of the “sphere” that are solely the domain of the State, or of the Church, or of the family, etc. Within those areas, the other “spheres” have no right to and ought not to interfere. I had also mentioned that one of the biggest criticisms of that theory is that it leads to a vertically stratified society. But, there are other criticisms.

Frankly, my personal strongest criticism is that it does not match either the actual Old Testament record nor the Christendom record. What do I mean? When you read the Old Testament, you do not really see sovereign spheres. Rather you see an interpenetration of all the areas of life by all the other areas of life. While there is no doubt that certain areas of life mainly are under the responsibility of the responsible party or parties, under certain circumstances, any area of life can speak into any other area of life. Thus a prophet can come to a king to accuse the king of a secular crime (Prophet Nathan and King David). A king can go to the temple and eat the bread of offering in certain circumstances (King David). A private individual may raise up an army to resist an invasion (Gideon). An individual may lead a rebellion against the legally established government, with the support of the prophets (both King David and King Jeroboam).

You see the same pattern in the post-Constantine world to this day. Justinian gave bishops the right to go inspect jails in order to ensure that the emperor’s dispositions regarding correct prisoner treatment were being kept. Emperors called Ecumenical Councils as needed and ensured the possibility of bishops traveling to that Council. In the Spanish New World, the archbishops, bishops, and priests often reported secular violations of civil rights, in particular, to the competent civil authorities. While many medieval hospitals were run by the Church, they were heavily underwritten by State money. To this day, Anglican vicars in England have the legal right to go into the State schools and walk around caring for the students and teaching religion there. In several other European (and South American) countries, the established church has rights viz a viz the State and the State provides partial support for Church projects. That is, this idea that is proposed that the Church has the responsibility for certain areas and that the State ought to keep out of them is simply not found as the common historical pattern in either the Old Testament or the established Church.

In times or areas in which the Church was not in a Christian country, one finds that the Church is much less involved in the type of works that are nowadays argued by the Religious Right as being part of the function of the Church. Even the quotes by one or two Romans about the amazing social works being performed by the Church had to do with how the Church in that locality was actually spending more than the State in social works. However, neither the Church of that time nor the State claimed that the Church should have the charge of social work. Rather, the Church, in its apologetic to the Roman Empire, even claimed that their works showed the lack of fulfillment of the responsibility of the State to care for its poor and needy. The Patriarchs of Constantinople more than once lambasted the State on the grounds that the Church was having to take care of part of the responsibility of the State to both provide for and defend the poor and the needy. NO argument is made that the Church has the sole responsibility for some of these areas.

In fact, the consistent witness of both the nation of Israel and the Church is that when there is a godly country, there is an interpenetration of the different areas of responsibility so that though there may be a responsible group, yet that group is not fully sovereign, but rather is part of a community (an economia) to which it is responsible. In times when there has not been a godly country, the Church simply does what it can in social areas and only insists that there are certain areas in which it must follow God. The exile books of Daniel and Nehemiah are good examples of what happens when God’s people are a non-controlling minority, so is Saint Paul’s letter to the Romans in chapter 13. In all cases, whether Israeli or New Testament, the believer is encouraged to be a godly law-abiding citizen, except in certain clearly defined areas where God must be obeyed rather than man, and there are not many of those areas. They are often limited to preaching, evangelizing, and personal holiness.

Therefore, the Religious Right argument about the government not having responsibility for certain social areas, and that those areas are the province of the Church is simply not found in the bulk of either Israeli or Church history. What is also not found is any claim by the Church that it can speak into the State, but that the State cannot speak into the Church. Yet, that is the claim of the bulk of the Religious Right. The claim is that the State may not say anything to the Church, may not tax the Church, may not require a group to formally register, etc., but that the Church can require the State to not allow civil unions, or to not sell alcohol, or to have Sunday blue laws, or to not allow certain books in school (or even public) libraries, etc. That is neither what historically has happened, nor it is actually Kuyper’s argument about spheres of sovereignty. It is rather an ugly hybrid of extreme right wing thinking and half of the Christendom model, the half which keeps the State from speaking into the Church while allowing the Church to force the State. So the State has its authority to do good (see Romans 13) wrested from it as well as its historic right to speak into the Church as much as the Church is allowed to speak into the State.

This is very convenient for the Religious Right, for it frees the Church from any responsibility to listen to the State, forbids the State from doing good, yet forces the State to be a partial arm of the Church. It is no wonder that so many Americans reject that model and fear that the Religious Right may indeed take this country back (not that they ever had it, which is a myth).