In the first part of this series I set forth my contention that, “To invest our redemptive yearnings in anything other than God’s action in Christ and through His body, the Church, to expect the rectification of “structural sin” or any kind of resolution for the identity-group-defined injustices through political action, is both naïve and dangerous: it is idolatrous.” Now, as promised I want to outline an alternative perspective. First, however, let me give you some context.

When I first wrote this material, in the setting of a “Chancellor’s Letter of Principles” for Mackenzie Presbyterian University (for the year 2019), my focus was on Brazil, and I stated:

Looking at our nation, Brazil on the cusp of the second decade of the XXI century, we see a country marked by social and economic inequalities and at the same time by forces that restrict growth and constrain free enterprise. If we long for a country that is equitable, well adjusted, productive, then we must turn a biblically critical eye to our own idea about the State, its nature, volume and function. There must be, on the part of those who profess a biblical view of the world, a root challenge to any ideological conception that seeks to substitute God as the “equalizer” of all scales and source of true justice, and replace Him with the State or any social structure, therefore creating a new form of “worship” that the Scriptures call idolatry—The State as provider in lieu of God is idolatrous.[i]

At that time, I would have found it difficult to believe that things could accelerate so much that the growing tensions found in the political arena, in Brazil, the United States, Europe and many other places, would find their way into the global church in insidious and pervasive ways. Most conservative reformed Christians would have frowned upon getting our political philosophy clues from Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979) or even from the brilliant and Christian Jacques Ellul (1912-1994) just a few decades ago—though much could be learned from reading our brother Ellul and even from understanding Marcusean neo-Marxism. We did engage radical hermeneutics and the like, in academic circles. But for most of us they were informative discussions and critical reads, not formative. Yet, things have changed very fast and a mixture of a current sanitary crisis, a new realpolitik and the festering of critical hermeneutics (as in the root of Critical Race Theory, Identity Politics, Grievance Ideologies, etc.), have brought us to a “brave new world.”

Maybe we can still draw some help from an old friend of Reformed political and legal thinking. I am thinking of Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) and his theory about the state and other spheres of society. Kuyper was a theologian, philosopher, and writer, who co-founded the first modern political party in the Netherlands and became prime minister in The Hague. He was gifted with keen theoretical and practical abilities that afforded him a fascinating perspective on applying a Christian worldview to look at the relationship between the state and other domains that made up a society. I want to look at his theoretical perspective on that issue, and then try to outline how that would work in practice.

 

Kuyper and a Confessional View of the State

Kuyper develops the concept of Sphere Sovereignty as a way to describe the relations between segments that make up human society.[ii]  This idea recognizes that society is composed of different spheres (different from the usual modern popular correspondence of society with the political body or “the state”) and that the Creator bestows these spheres or domains with relative sovereignty amongst themselves and a special way of relating to one another. Kuyper develops the idea that the different spheres, such as, the state, productive and commercial units, free associations, the church and religion, science and educational units, and the basic sphere of the family, must enjoy freedom in relation to one another and have their own realms of authority and prerogatives. Allow me to develop this a little by taking the issue of economic inequality, so emphasized nowadays, and relate it to the domain of the state while making some reflections about its dimension and appropriate functions, as well as the other domains that have shared responsibility. Note that the spheres presented here do not necessarily represent a hierarchy.

 

The Sphere of the State

Imbuing the state with the responsibility or right to distribute wealth seems problematic. The state does not normally produce wealth and the wealth that it draws from its citizens is not the state’s own but only entrusted for use in the common good.  What the state must do is curtail economic abuse of the weaker by the more powerful. The state’s sphere of action, therefore, allows a regulatory and juridical role. Hence, it is appropriate for the state to establish protections against abuses, incentives for development, and security in social and economic relations. By implication, the state may also develop the infrastructure needed for such goals as well as organizational structures that encourage and promote the joint labors of other spheres of society to work for the common good. Perhaps, we might add, a state-based basic social safety net (which, in my opinion should be truly basic, because of the always-present risk of becoming a Leviathan that, as a black hole, draws in all of the state’s resources). By doing this, the state has adhered to the Divine mandate (as spelled out in Romans 13: 3-7, for example).

Let me propose an analogy, that I must refrain from trying to unpack in this article lest I get off-track, but suffice to point out that it is born out of a specific conception of natural law, or Creation-law.[iii]  We may say that the state’s functional matrix (I am not speaking of political model or social structuring, rather, of the basic presupposed flow of power and authority) should resemble the substructure that underlain the Jewish State under Moses, with the significant difference that there, the state was Theocratic and its structuring was established by God’s revealed law. Nevertheless, in both cases, legitimacy of action in the sphere of the state involved higher regulation by the following forces:

1. A “Covenant”—whether divinely inspired in an immediate way, such as in the Law given at Sinai, or whether as derived from General Revelation, that is, the highest national law-code, the Constitution, the Magna Carta, some kind of national charter or whichever document the Federal Pact or Social Contract of a given people.
2. The transcendent Values of God’s Law—whether directly revealed, or the Law inscribed in the human heart and revealed in Creation. In the latter are included all transcendent foundational commitments such as Justice, Truth, Parity, Mutuality, Respect, Individual Liberties (for example, in the United States, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness), and such things that compose, within a Judeo-Christian framework, a universe of moral obligations for life in society.

In summary, I have argued that the domain of the State is not autonomous—it is under dual controls. Its action is limited “horizontally” and downwards by other spheres and, at the same time, exists under the authority of something above it: a regency exerted by transcendent realities that are foundationally covenanted. Of course, for us as Christians this is all rooted in the will of God established in the Creation-structure.

 

The Sphere of the Productive Units

The sphere of the Productive and Commercial Units, all the way from industry and agriculture to commerce and trade at several levels, is subject to some limitations imposed by the sphere of the State. The state, however, may not usurp or inadequately curtail the prerogatives and attributions of this sphere, for this realm must enjoy relative sovereignty in its actions as a protagonist to produce wealth. So the state may assure that the relations are just (and it is only at this juncture that I think the concept of “justice as fairness” suggested by the Anglican John Rawls may be helpful, and not as a general concept of the nature of Justice).[iv] It may legitimately limit monopoly, curtail abuse and impede corruption so that this sphere does not become another type of Leviathan. The state may even collaborate and offer relative guidance to this sphere when opportune, but may never obstruct or keep this sphere from functioning with relative independence. 

 

The Sphere of the Free Associations

The sphere of the Free Associations includes all the way from the medieval guilds to the modern professional associations, also workers associations in its various forms, clubs, charitable societies, or any other kind of organization that gathers citizens in association to act jointly for their own benefit or that of society. This sphere is legitimate and deserves autonomy of action within its domain. The spheres of the State and of the Productive and Commercial Units should not control it, except by the limitations that naturally issue from their use of their own ascriptions.

This is how it would work: The state regulates, prevents abuse, encourages them to work for the common good, and preserves the rights of individuals within and without the associations and of one association in relation to other associations. The Productive and Commercial Sphere exerts its influence in the sustainability, viability and in the limitation or promotion of resources needed for the associative units. This domain is also where those associations that strive for equality of opportunities and conditions, or, for the exercise of philanthropic and mercy-care. Again, observe how it is also subject to dual control: limitations from above and from other spheres.

 

The Sphere of the Church (or of Religion)

The sphere of the Church or, more generally, of Religion, is sovereign in its role of connecting human beings with what is transcendent, with their spiritual concerns. In this function, other spheres may never curtail the domain of Religion. At the same time, other spheres do exert limitations upon the realm of Religion so that it may not usurp what God has attributed to other spheres. The Church may not, for example, usurp or compel the state, should not take on the role of generating wealth, nor become simply a free association for her own benefit, the benefit of her members, or even charitable action on its own. Her calling includes service to others as a consequence of her beliefs and values. The Church may even cooperate with the state or any other sphere as a cobelligerent for the common good, but should always preserve her autonomy.

The sphere of Religion must preserve its independence not only for its own preservation, but also to assure the effective fulfillment of its role in relation to other spheres. From a Judeo-Christian perspective, it befalls to the sphere of Religion the responsibility of teaching the transcendent values and guiding principles, needed for ordering life in society, to the state, to the realm of industry and commerce, and to the sphere of the free associations.[v] This prophetic part in society, however, hinges its effectiveness on understanding that the very nature and prerogatives of the realm of Religion demand teaching and exercising mercy,[vi] caring for those in need and striving for the exercise and triumph of justice.   

In short, the sphere of the Church is the protagonist for offering transcendent guidance in society so that the state, as well as other spheres, may faithfully exercise their own mandates. If the state orders economic and social relations to keep abuse and injustices from perpetuating distorted inequalities, if the sphere of wealth production labors to produce wealth within the bounds justly established by the state, and, the free associations properly strive for the interests of their components, then the sphere of Religion has a very special dual role. The church teaches, inspires and illustrates in practical ways the care for the poor, the protection of the weak and of the “fragile” of society. Nevertheless, entreating all of society to submission to the transcendent values that make us human is another function that falls within the domain of Religion. From the standpoint of the Christian Confession, such “values that make us human” relate to being created in God’s image and invested with vast potentials.

Transcendent bearing has its original soil in the realm of Religion. This is why it is an appropriate sphere to focus on the roots of economic inequality, but only insofar as the proclamation of God’s love and love of neighbor is the appropriate basis for normative concern for others (true alterity), thus, demanding, for example, generosity on the part of those who have wealth and an obligation to mercy and charity. For a Christian, just as it is a sin to steal someone’s property, so it is a sin to administer the wealth under the Christian’s stewardship with no concern for those who are in need (see, for example, James 1: 27)!

 

Other Spheres of Sovereignty

Abraham Kuyper spoke of other domains that are equally important, each also enjoying relative sovereignty and independence, as well as original jurisdiction. The spheres of Science and of Education, for example, that have as a mandate the quest and transmission of knowledge and truth. Most importantly, however, the sphere of the Family, the most basic unit of social existence, which is not instituted by the State, the Church, or any other spheres, rather, has its origin, like the other spheres, in the very structure of creation. This last sphere has been the target of much of the post-morality enmity, so it is important to highlight that in terms of sequence, it is the original sphere and that it is, in a very particular way, not beholden to the other spheres!

 

Is this Emphasis Adequate?

To keep our focus, I will refrain from a more detailed discussion of the other spheres at this time. My interest here is to use the idea of Sphere Sovereignty (or shared responsibility, as I will suggest later) as an alternative approach to the statist vision, which I believe encourages the State as the great leviathan that claims absolute sovereignty, demands submission and, in the last instance, cultic service (that is, “worship!”).

I do believe, nevertheless, this focus is consistent with Kuyper’s original intent when he first spoke about Sphere Sovereignty at the Free University of Amsterdam almost 140 years ago. He offered this concept as an opposition to the absolutist and statist tendencies he described in the empire-making thrust throughout human history and which he clearly saw as a current tendency in the elevation of the domain of the state in his Europe at the time.

Therefore, in the next and final article of this series, I will continue to take on the question of economic inequality in modern society and of the need for prosperity and Shalom (peace, harmony, wholeness, completeness, prosperity, welfare and tranquility all bundled together!). I will continue to rely on this idea of “shared responsibility” (each sphere responsible and free in their own jurisdictions) as I put forward a sketch of what I would see as a practical confessional approach to deal with social inequalities.  Before that, however, maybe we do well to remember the abovementioned Dutch Prime Minister’s exhortation that it is hard to repel, “without ‘Sphere Sovereignty,’ the state's unlimited rule; disposing of persons, their life, their rights, their conscience, and even their faith.”[vii]

See also:

No Idols (part 1 of 3): A Confessional Approach to the State

No Idols (part 3 of 3): A Confessional Approach to the State and Inequalities

---

[i] Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie, Carta de Princípios 2019, found at https://www.mackenzie.br/en/chancelaria/artigos/arquivo/n/a/i/uma-visao-confessional. Note: I use the term “worship” taking into consideration the origin of the English word: “worship (n.) —  Old English worðscip, wurðscip (Anglian), weorðscipe (West Saxon) "condition of being worthy, dignity, glory, distinction, honor, renown," from weorð "worthy" (see worth) + -scipe (see -ship). Sense of "reverence paid to a supernatural or divine being" is first recorded c. 1300. The original sense is preserved in the title worshipful "honorable" (c. 1300).” https://www.etymonline.com/word/worship

[ii] Abraham Kuyper. Lectures on Calvinism: Six Lectures from the Stone Foundation Lectures Delivered at Princeton University (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008).

[iii] For anyone interested in exploring this general point, let me suggest two books by John Mitchell Finnis: Moral Absolutes: Tradition, Revision and Truth, Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1991; and Natural Law and Natural Rights, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980; 2nd ed., 2011.

[iv] See John Rawls, A Theory of Justice: Revised Edition. Boston: Belknap Press, 1999.

[v] Note: I would maintain this to be the case even in the face of irreligious protest, since “secular religion” is not something that takes place outside of what I have called “the Sphere of Religion,” but rather it is simply one way of expressing religious commitment, albeit in a negative way. For example, the attempt to ground moral guidance in evolutionary philosophy or pragmatic self-interest may deny transcendence in a traditional way, but in turn tries to establish some other kind of transcendental grounding in purely naturalistic ways. For a fuller perspective on this discussion, I recommend the following upcoming book: Louise Mabille, Henk Stoker (Editors). The Morality Wars: The Ongoing Debate Over The Origin Of Human Goodness. Minneapolis: Fortress Academic, 2021.

[vi] For example, as Sir Roger Scruton suggested, society learned from Christian religion how essential confession and forgiveness are for social order. See Roger Scruton. How to Be a Conservative. London: Bloomsbury Continuum, 2015. P. 16.

[vii] Abraham Kuyper, Sphere Sovereignty, A public address delivered at the inauguration of the Free University, Oct. 20, 1880 (Translated by George Kamps), p. 4. (Downloaded on April 6, 2021 from http://www.reformationalpublishingproject.com/pdf_books/Scanned_Books_PDF/SphereSovereignty_English.pdf)

---

Dr. Davi Charles Gomes is the International Director of the Wolrd Reformed Fellowship, a graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary, he is a minister of the Presbyterian Church of Brazil and the former Chancellor of Mackenziue Presbyterian University, in São Paulo, Brazil. Click here for a brief bio.