Of late, a renewed interest in sphere sovereignty has come to be very much in evidence. What is it? How is it being misunderstood? In this article, Rev. Peter De Jong, pastor of the Christian Reformed Church of Dutton, Michigan, states: This is no mere philosophical argument. Consider a few of the results that appear from accepting the notion of independent sovereign spheres and human sovereignties that have no one one over them but God.
THE NEW SPHERE SOVEREIGNTY AT WORK
The old idea of “sphere sovereignty” is at present getting renewed attention and discussion. While some are proclaiming it a doctrine demanded by Christ’s Commission, belonging “to the very essence of the Christian walk of life,” one of the “creation ordinances,” others regard it with growing apprehension and skepticism, especially as they observe the methods and results of the proclamation of it by prominent members of the Association for the Advancement of Christian Scholarship (AACS). What is this controversial “sphere sovereignty”? If we are going to see our way through current problems regarding it, or help others to do so, we should 6rst try to find out what we are really talking about.
WHAT IS IT? SOVEREIGNTY IN THE CHURCH
The expression seems to have come into common use especially in the church struggles of our forefathers in the Netherlands a century ago, struggles in which Abraham Kuyper emerged as a leader. Between 1795 and 1815 the country had been overrun by the French revolutionary movement and the succeeding empire of Napoleon so that by 1810 the church, united with the state, had lost all power of independent action.
In 1815, upon the downfall of Napoleon, William 1, in a sincere but misguided effort to help the church recover from the havoc of revolutionary and Napoleonic days, created classical and provincial “boards” whose members were appointed by himself to rule the churches, instead of the older classes and synods. The result was that, although the churches received new material support, they came to be completely controlled by the state and by a liberal theology which they had no means to resist. Against this state of affairs, Abraham Kuyper, after his own conversion in about 1866, led an increasing attack. W.H. Gispen, an interested observer, and himself a member of the smaller secession movement of fifty years earlier, commenting in De Bazuin (Eenige Brieven aan een Vriend te ]eruzalem, 1903, p. 252), described how “under the genial and powerful leadership of Dr. Kuyper the old system of theology and church order was brought up out of the dust and presented in scientific circles”; and how, although almost the whole intellectual world turned against Kuyper, he found a growing following among the ordinary people who began to gain the upper hand in the control of local congregations.
According to Gispen: “If these consistories had been left free to be sovereign in their own sphere and to operate according to God’s Word as they understood it, there would have been no thought of revolution or secession . . .” Gispen saw the God-ordained sovereignty of the church in its own sphere which the state was suppressing, as the issue that drove the churches to separate from a corrupt and tyrannical organization.
What fault could anyone find with this kind of “sphere sovereignty”? Does God’s Word not teach elders, “Take heed . . . to all the Rock, in which the Holy Spirit hath make you bishops”; and also admonish them to guard it especially against the false teachers that will attack it like “wolves” and the heresies that will arise to break it down from within? (Acts 20:28–31; cf. Heb. 13: 17). Does it not teach us that when government attempts to suppress the testimony God has commanded the church to bring, “We must obey God rather than men”? (Acts 5:29; cf. 4:18–20.)
WIDER DEVELOPMENT: THE LORD’S SOVEREIGNTY IN SOCIETY
Abraham Kuyper, as I pointed out in an earlier article, was not only interested in church reform; he also became a Christian leader in government and in education. He acknowledged the claim of Christ as King in every area of human life and action and therefore entitled the collection of his writings on this subject, Pro Rege (For the King).
At the beginning of the third volume of this work Kuyper observes that “Family, Society, and State are three independent ‘factors’ of our human life, to which the Church is added as a fourth extra-factor” (p. 2). While in the areas of family and state a certain natural authority had developed very early in history, in the intervening areas of society such development came much more slowly, with the result that especially in our times this belated social development has produced a multitude of problems. This modern social movement has often taken the form of an attack on the family and the state, by its demand of unrestrained freedom, thus threatening the whole structure of life with anarchy. In this critical situation Christians need to observe clearly the borders within which this social development must be confined. Although the organization of this area of life must be encouraged, it must not be permitted to endanger the family or to undermine the authority of the government.
Kuyper explained that, while the family has certain natural rules governing it, and the state had its laws, society, lacking such fixed organization, structure, rules and laws, is peculiarly exposed to the incursion of the devil who can readily use it as a base for his attacks on the rest of man’s life. Since Christ must rule everywhere, the battle for His Kingdom must also be waged in society. This must be done even though the Christian will find extra difficulties here which may tempt him to evade this area. While in the home, church and government the way is clearly marked and relatively easy, amid the social problems “each must find his own way” and, “the traps and pitfalls (are) without number.” This presentation of Kuyper’s vision of the Christian’s calling in society invites agreement and appreciation. Does not God’s Word say, “Let each man, wherein he was called, therein abide with God”? (I Cor. 7:24.) “Whatsoever ye do, work heartily as unto the Lord, and not unto men; . . . ye serve the Lord Christ” (Col. 3:23, 24).
FURTHER DEVELOPMENT: THE FREE UNIVERSITY SPEECH AND STONE LECTURES
At the dedication of the Free University in 1880, Kuyper entitled his speech, “Souvereiniteit in Eigen Kring,” broadly translated “Sphere Sovereignty.” That speech, like the later “Stone Lectures” on Calvinism given during his visit to the U.S., confronts us with a much more elaborate development of Kuyper’s sphere-sovereignty idea.
In the University speech Kuyper’s idea was still a principle to be maintained against the tendency of the state to try to run everything. H. Van Riessen in his The Society of the Future (pp. 75f.) writes: “Sometime.~ hc gives the impression that he dreads danger only from the State. ‘Sphere-sovereignty’ is opposed to ‘state-sovereignty’: there you have the long and the short of world-history” (a quotation from Souvereiniteit in Eigen Kring, p. 13). At the same time, Kuyper proceeded to develop the theory much more broadly. He described human life as an infinitely complicated organism, consisting of “circles” (or “spheres”) “as numberless as the stars in the sky” existing “each in its own order” (Souvereiniteit, pp. 10, 11).
“Sovereignty” Kuyper defined as “an authority that includes the right, the duty and the power to break and to avenge any resistance it encounters” (Kuyper Souvereiniteit, p. 8; Van Riessen, p. 70). Although this sovereignty in its original, absolute sense was found in no creature but was “identical with the Majesty of God,” the Sovereign God did and does transfer His authority to men in various “offices.” This sovereignty, absolute on earth only in Christ, was otherwise found among men only within certain “spheres,” the sovereignty within each sphere being bounded by that in other adjoining spheres.
This “sphere-sovereignty” Kuyper characterized further in his Stone Lectures (p. 91) as given to the “independent” “organic” parts of society which have “nothing above themselves but God . . .” After distinguishing the sovereignties that exist in these spheres in various ways, he characterized some of them in these extravagant terms:
– Genius is a sovereign power; it lays hold on the spirits of men, with irresistible might . . . . This sovereignty of genius is a gift of God, possessed only by His grace. It is subject to no one and is responsible to Him alone who has granted it this ascendancy.
– The same phenomenon is observable in the sphere of art. Every maestro is a king in the Palace of Art, not by the law of inheritance or by appointment, but only by the grace of God. And these maestros also impose authority, and are subject to no one, but rule over all and in the end receive all the homage due to their artistic superiority.
– And the same is to be said of the sovereign power of personality. There is no equality of persons . in all spheres of life . . . . Everywhere one man is more powerful than the other, by his personality, by his talent, and by circumstances. Dominion is exercised everywhere . . . not by virtue of a State investiture, but from life; sovereignty itself.
– In relation herewith, and on entirely the same ground of organic superiority, there exists, side by side with this personal sovereignty, the sovereignty of the sphere. The University exercises scientific dominion; the Academy of fine arts is possessed of art-power; the guild exercises a technical dominion; the trades-union rules over labor—and each of these spheres or corporations is conscious of the power of exclusive judgment and authoritative action, within its proper sphere of operation.
Going on to speak of the family with “parental authority” rooted “in the very life-blood and” . . . proclaimed in the fifth Commandment, Kuyper observed that “God rules in these spheres, just as supremely and sovereignly through his chosen virtuous as He exercises dominion in the sphere of the State itself, through his chosen magistrates” ( pp. 95, 96). On the basis of this Sovereignty of God, given by Him according to Kuyper to the individual spheres, “A people therefore which abandons to State Supremacy the rights of the family, or a University which abandons to it the rights of science, is just as guilty before God as a nation which lays its hands upon the rights of magistrates. And this struggle for liberty is not only declared permissible, but is made a duty for each individual in his own sphere” (p. 98).
Professor Van Groningen, writing on this subject in the January issue of THE OUTLOOK, stated that “sphere sovereignty does not mean a societal sphere is sovereign in its own right. It does not mean that any person is sovereign in any sphere of life.” A careful reading of these writings of Kuyper shows, however, that this is exactly what he on these occasions said it did mean. Of course, he always qualified this by saying that “Sovereignty” must be under God. But he stated most emphatically that the independent spheres and the men in office in those spheres, the geniuses, artists, or others who ruled in them, had “nothing above themselves but God.”
KUYPER’S “SPHERE SOVEREIGNTY” IN THE LIGHT OF SCRIPTURE
How could Kuyper justify such a principle of “sphere sovereignty”? In his Free University speech he answered those who might question whether this principle is biblical by saying that they should consider first “the organic faith-principle of Scripture in its depths” and then notice David’s coronation by Israel at Hebron, Elijah’s opposition to Ahab’s tyranny, the apostles’ refusal to yield to police order in Jeruzalem, and the Lord’s remarks concerning the apostles’ refusal to yield to police order in Jeruzalem, and the Lord’s remarks concerning the tribute money on what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God (p. 25).
Professor Van Riessen frankly admits that, “Of course the Bible does not give us a theory of sphere-sovereignty. To expect such would be the highest of folly. The term is nowhere to be found. But when once aware of the creation principle for the organization of society, we do find in the Bible a self-evident harmony with that principle; in agreement, of course, with the historical development of social practice.” “Kuyper arrived at the idea of sphere-sovereignty because he observed in history that where this principle was violated, life was brought into distress and society reached a dead end.”
In other words, this “system” of Kuyper was admittedly not a plain teaching of the Scriptures but his practical, speculative and somewhat tentative conclusion from his observations of history and practical politics! Van Riessen further admits: “The writings of Kuyper himself on his subject sometimes present difficulties. One has the impression that they are caused by certain scholastic ideas.” And he proceeds to point out obvious inconsistencies in Kuyper’s views (Van Riessen, pp. 73, 74, 75 ).
Although the Bible teaches us that “we must obey God rather than men’· when government orders us to disobey Him (Acts 5:29), and that we must “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s” (Matt. 22:17ff.) it certainly gives no ground for a theory of human relations which divides all of life into competitive spheres, each of which “has the God-given right and duty and power to break and avenge any resistance it encounters” and the authorities in which are under no one but God! Could one imagine principles more completely opposed to those the Lord taught his disciples when He said: “Ye know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Not so shall it be among you: but whosoever would become great among you shall be your minister and whosoever would be 6rst among you shall be your servant: even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:25–28).
Similarly Paul, instead of dividing Christian life into such independent spheres, lays down the principle: “For even as we have many members in one body, and all the members have not the same office so we, who are many, arc one body in Christ, and severally members one of another” (Rom. 12:4). In I Corinthians 12:12ff. Paul stresses the same basic principle that Christians are all members of the one body and that therefore each must use his particular gifts to profit the whole (vs. 7).
Ephesians 5:21ff. reminds us that we must always be “subjecting ourselves one to another in the fear of Christ,” proceeding to apply this general injunction to Christians in their various relationships (or “spheres”): husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and slaves.
Similarly, Peter in his first letter admonishes Christians not to fight for personal or “sphere” sovereignties, but to “Be subject to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, addressing particularly servants, wives and husbands” (2:13ff.). He reminds especially elders not to behave “as lording it over the charge allotted to you, but making yourselves examples to the flock,” concluding, “Likewise ye younger be subject unto the elder. Yea, all of you gird yourselves with humility to serve one another” (5:3, 5).
Can one find anywhere in all God’s Word any order to Christians that each in his or her sovereign position is called to “break and avenge any resistance he or she encounters”? While government, indeed does have such a limited authority to use force and avenge evil (Romans 13), the individual Christian is forbidden to take this role (Romans 12:19) and commanded to follow a totally different, even opposite course in his relations with his fellow men. The Lord commanded us to fight against evil, not against Christians in other spheres.
“SOVEREIGNTY” OF DOOYEWEERD AND HIS FOLLOWERS
While Dr. Kuyper advanced the idea of “sphere sovereignty” somewhat speculatively and tentatively, with a view especially to government problems, Professor H. Dooyeweerd and his followers especially in North America have carried the development of the theory much further and into other fields.
Professor Van Groningen in his article cautioned us that the “societal spheres” are not to be identified with the “philosopher’s modalities of reality.” While (his is true, we should also observe that Dooyeweerd in the Foreword of his great A New Critique of Theoretical Thought (p. vi) informs us that “One of the fundamental principles of this ncw philosophy is the cosmological basic principle of sphere-sovereignty suggested by ABRAHAM KUYPER . . . On this principle rests the general theory of the modal law spheres . . .” In other words, Dooyeweerd’s “modalities” were in principle an application of Kuyper’s “sphere-sovereignty” ideas not only to human relationships but to all of reality! And Dooyeweerd’s system is really a further development of the “sphere-sovereignty” theory Kuyper suggested. It is therefore not surprising that the AACS followers of Dooyeweerd’s philosophy constantly promote the sphere-sovereignty theory as a basic, organizing principle. A number of the peculiarities of the AACS movement that otherwise seem mystifying become quite intelligible when one sees them as a “runaway” development of this “sphere-sovereignty” theory.
To understand the AACS development we must notice one important difference between it and Kuyper. Kuyper, although he shows that his more extreme views on this subject were derived from his observations of creation and history rather than from any plain Bible teaching, was in general still restrained in this as in other matters by a high respect for the Bible as the Word of God. The AACS movement, however, does not operate under this restraint. Its spokesmen increasingly warn us against exaggerating the role of the Bible since it is only one of several “forms” of the word of God (To Prod the Slumbering Giant, pp. 30, 167, 168; Will All the King’s Men, pages 154, 182, 184, for examples). Dr. H. Hart has told us that the Bible’s inspiration is not unique but is also given to other men (The Challenge of Our Age, pp. 118, 119, 130, pp. Note 5). And A. De Graaff stated that Kuyper was mistaken in thinking that he could derive principles in sociology, psychology or even theology from the Bible. If we are not to be misled in such matters we should be guided by considering the “creational ordinances” with the help of Dooyeweerdian philosophy! (The Educational Ministry of the Church, pp. 156–158). This downgrading of the Bible opens the way for developments of the “sphere-sovereignty” idea in ways which Kuyper would never have endorsed.
THE NEW SPHERE SOVEREIGNTY AT WORK
Perhaps someone might say, “Why should we trouble ourselves with such an argument about words? What is the difference whether one is an enthusiast for ‘sphere sovereignty ‘or skeptical about it?” This is mere philosophical argument. Consider a few of the results that appear from accepting the notion of independent sovereign spheres and human sovereignties that have no one over them but God:
– A young couple decide to live together without the formalities of marriage, justifying their action by appealing to this principle that neither state nor church has any legitimate right to interfere in the sovereign sphere of the family!
– A Christian school teacher teaching English decides to require that his students read a modern novel that is liberally sprinkled with profanity and obscenities. When parents or the school board object he defends his procedure by an appeal to the principle of spheres sovereignty as in this case it is embodied in his “educational creed”; “The responsible freedom of the scholar must be protected against any constraint or domination of church, state, industry or other social structure” (AACS Educational Creed; compare To Prod the Slumbering Giant, pp. 28, 34, 169, where parents and the board are assigned a concern only with the “spiritual” and “religious direction” of the school, leaving educational matters to the sovereignty of teachers).
– Again, when the church takes a position on such a matter as birth control or Sunday observance, this is condemned as an invasion of the sphere of the family (John A. Olthuis, “Hidden Invaders of our Homes” in Hope for the Family, p. 30). The church, therefore, is forbidden by this sphere sovereignty doctrine to speak or take decisions on matters that pertain to any other spheres. It must stick to its own “cui tic sphere” or what goes on in the walls of its own building. At the same time there has been a barrage of criticism by the AACS (recall the books Out of Concern for the Church and Will All the King’s Men) against the church because it has been too narrowly preoccupied with its own institutional matters! In other words, it is being mercilessly attacked and condemned by the AACS both for confining itself to its own sphere and for not doing so!
These are just a few examples that show the demoralization and destruction that this version of “sphere sovereignty” is bringing into our homes, schools and churches when it is brought into practice.
Notice that these examples are not just illogical or erratic departures from good, accepted principles, possibly due to immaturity or excessive zeal, as some of us used to think. They are logical and quite consistent applications of this version of “sphere sovereignty” which enthusiasts are promoting among us. (The more radical and extreme members of a new movement often show more clearly the direction in which it is going than its more moderate followers who are still restrained by old principles they inconsistently retain.)
The problem is not that some are carrying a good theory “too far,” it is that, adopted as the basic organizing principle, this theory starts people off in a wrong direction.
A theory of sphere sovereignty which takes sovereignty to mean, as Kuyper once defined it as the “right, the duty and the power to break and avenge, any resistance it encounters,” must pit each “sphere” against each other and produce the kind of unrestrained and destructive attacks on the church that abound in such a book as the AACS’ Out of Concern for the Church.
Rudolf Van Reest in his intriguing little Terugzien na Viifentwintig Jaren (p. 164) observes that the writers of that book appear in the role of soldiers shooting from the bunker of their own sovereign scientific “sphere” at the other sovereign sphere of the church rather than as church members in the office of believers. This version of “sphere sovereignty,” consistently applied, creates a state of civil war in which the members of each sphere, heavily armed must seek to “break and avenge” any restraint they may encounter from another sphere. Could there be a grosser caricature of the communion of saints than this, or any principle more certain to destroy any individuals or institutions that set out to practice it? Galatians 5:15 warns us: “If ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another”; and James 3;15 even warns us that the principle of rivalry as “faction” is not a “wisdom that cometh down from above, but is earthly, sensual devilish.”
Notice the turn that this development of “sphere sovereignty” is taking. Abraham Kuyper, seeing the anti-Christian spirit of revolution and anarchy arising in all areas of life, set out as obedience to Christ the King to counteract it by calling upon men to acknowledge the sovereignty of God. His political movement took the name “Anti-Revolutionary.” This new movement, claiming to follow and elaborate on some of his ideas of “sphere sovereignty” moves in an opposite direction and becomes revolutionary.
The AACS writings reveal a rather consistent and pronounced bias especially against anything “conservative,” and an instinctive sympathy (though combined with gentle criticism) for what is new and revolutionary. This together with the “sphere-sovereignty” hostility to all kinds of (other) sovereignties in this time of widespread attack on all kinds of authority gives it a special appeal to many young people, encouraging them to oppose parents, church, school and every other kind of authority.
Abraham Kuyper warned us in Pro Rege of the many pitfalls that exist especially in the area of society and of the way the devil has evidently selected that as a base for his attack on God’s rule. Now we are seeing some of Kuyper’s followers, less restrained and guided by the Scriptures than he, stumbling into and leading the churches and schools, in as far as they follow them, into the very pitfalls against which Kuyper warned us.
In a previous article I traced the way in which Kuyper’s enterprises for the sake of Christ the King have been shaken or fallen apart in our time. A study of what happened to his ideas of sphere-sovereignty shows in some further detail how this process of deterioration is at work, also among us. For the remedy we will have to turn, like Kuyper and every other real reformer in church history, back to the Scriptures and the Lord of the Scriptures. The Lord and His Word are the only foundations for our faith and life. What is truly built on that will stand, what is built on other foundations will not (Luke 6:47–49).
THE NEW SPHERE SOVEREIGNTY AT WORK
The old idea of “sphere sovereignty” is at present getting renewed attention and discussion. While some are proclaiming it a doctrine demanded by Christ’s Commission, belonging “to the very essence of the Christian walk of life,” one of the “creation ordinances,” others regard it with growing apprehension and skepticism, especially as they observe the methods and results of the proclamation of it by prominent members of the Association for the Advancement of Christian Scholarship (AACS). What is this controversial “sphere sovereignty”? If we are going to see our way through current problems regarding it, or help others to do so, we should 6rst try to find out what we are really talking about.
WHAT IS IT? SOVEREIGNTY IN THE CHURCH
The expression seems to have come into common use especially in the church struggles of our forefathers in the Netherlands a century ago, struggles in which Abraham Kuyper emerged as a leader. Between 1795 and 1815 the country had been overrun by the French revolutionary movement and the succeeding empire of Napoleon so that by 1810 the church, united with the state, had lost all power of independent action.
In 1815, upon the downfall of Napoleon, William 1, in a sincere but misguided effort to help the church recover from the havoc of revolutionary and Napoleonic days, created classical and provincial “boards” whose members were appointed by himself to rule the churches, instead of the older classes and synods. The result was that, although the churches received new material support, they came to be completely controlled by the state and by a liberal theology which they had no means to resist. Against this state of affairs, Abraham Kuyper, after his own conversion in about 1866, led an increasing attack. W.H. Gispen, an interested observer, and himself a member of the smaller secession movement of fifty years earlier, commenting in De Bazuin (Eenige Brieven aan een Vriend te ]eruzalem, 1903, p. 252), described how “under the genial and powerful leadership of Dr. Kuyper the old system of theology and church order was brought up out of the dust and presented in scientific circles”; and how, although almost the whole intellectual world turned against Kuyper, he found a growing following among the ordinary people who began to gain the upper hand in the control of local congregations.
According to Gispen: “If these consistories had been left free to be sovereign in their own sphere and to operate according to God’s Word as they understood it, there would have been no thought of revolution or secession . . .” Gispen saw the God-ordained sovereignty of the church in its own sphere which the state was suppressing, as the issue that drove the churches to separate from a corrupt and tyrannical organization.
What fault could anyone find with this kind of “sphere sovereignty”? Does God’s Word not teach elders, “Take heed . . . to all the Rock, in which the Holy Spirit hath make you bishops”; and also admonish them to guard it especially against the false teachers that will attack it like “wolves” and the heresies that will arise to break it down from within? (Acts 20:28–31; cf. Heb. 13: 17). Does it not teach us that when government attempts to suppress the testimony God has commanded the church to bring, “We must obey God rather than men”? (Acts 5:29; cf. 4:18–20.)
WIDER DEVELOPMENT: THE LORD’S SOVEREIGNTY IN SOCIETY
Abraham Kuyper, as I pointed out in an earlier article, was not only interested in church reform; he also became a Christian leader in government and in education. He acknowledged the claim of Christ as King in every area of human life and action and therefore entitled the collection of his writings on this subject, Pro Rege (For the King).
At the beginning of the third volume of this work Kuyper observes that “Family, Society, and State are three independent ‘factors’ of our human life, to which the Church is added as a fourth extra-factor” (p. 2). While in the areas of family and state a certain natural authority had developed very early in history, in the intervening areas of society such development came much more slowly, with the result that especially in our times this belated social development has produced a multitude of problems. This modern social movement has often taken the form of an attack on the family and the state, by its demand of unrestrained freedom, thus threatening the whole structure of life with anarchy. In this critical situation Christians need to observe clearly the borders within which this social development must be confined. Although the organization of this area of life must be encouraged, it must not be permitted to endanger the family or to undermine the authority of the government.
Kuyper explained that, while the family has certain natural rules governing it, and the state had its laws, society, lacking such fixed organization, structure, rules and laws, is peculiarly exposed to the incursion of the devil who can readily use it as a base for his attacks on the rest of man’s life. Since Christ must rule everywhere, the battle for His Kingdom must also be waged in society. This must be done even though the Christian will find extra difficulties here which may tempt him to evade this area. While in the home, church and government the way is clearly marked and relatively easy, amid the social problems “each must find his own way” and, “the traps and pitfalls (are) without number.” This presentation of Kuyper’s vision of the Christian’s calling in society invites agreement and appreciation. Does not God’s Word say, “Let each man, wherein he was called, therein abide with God”? (I Cor. 7:24.) “Whatsoever ye do, work heartily as unto the Lord, and not unto men; . . . ye serve the Lord Christ” (Col. 3:23, 24).
FURTHER DEVELOPMENT: THE FREE UNIVERSITY SPEECH AND STONE LECTURES
At the dedication of the Free University in 1880, Kuyper entitled his speech, “Souvereiniteit in Eigen Kring,” broadly translated “Sphere Sovereignty.” That speech, like the later “Stone Lectures” on Calvinism given during his visit to the U.S., confronts us with a much more elaborate development of Kuyper’s sphere-sovereignty idea.
In the University speech Kuyper’s idea was still a principle to be maintained against the tendency of the state to try to run everything. H. Van Riessen in his The Society of the Future (pp. 75f.) writes: “Sometime.~ hc gives the impression that he dreads danger only from the State. ‘Sphere-sovereignty’ is opposed to ‘state-sovereignty’: there you have the long and the short of world-history” (a quotation from Souvereiniteit in Eigen Kring, p. 13). At the same time, Kuyper proceeded to develop the theory much more broadly. He described human life as an infinitely complicated organism, consisting of “circles” (or “spheres”) “as numberless as the stars in the sky” existing “each in its own order” (Souvereiniteit, pp. 10, 11).
“Sovereignty” Kuyper defined as “an authority that includes the right, the duty and the power to break and to avenge any resistance it encounters” (Kuyper Souvereiniteit, p. 8; Van Riessen, p. 70). Although this sovereignty in its original, absolute sense was found in no creature but was “identical with the Majesty of God,” the Sovereign God did and does transfer His authority to men in various “offices.” This sovereignty, absolute on earth only in Christ, was otherwise found among men only within certain “spheres,” the sovereignty within each sphere being bounded by that in other adjoining spheres.
This “sphere-sovereignty” Kuyper characterized further in his Stone Lectures (p. 91) as given to the “independent” “organic” parts of society which have “nothing above themselves but God . . .” After distinguishing the sovereignties that exist in these spheres in various ways, he characterized some of them in these extravagant terms:
– Genius is a sovereign power; it lays hold on the spirits of men, with irresistible might . . . . This sovereignty of genius is a gift of God, possessed only by His grace. It is subject to no one and is responsible to Him alone who has granted it this ascendancy.
– The same phenomenon is observable in the sphere of art. Every maestro is a king in the Palace of Art, not by the law of inheritance or by appointment, but only by the grace of God. And these maestros also impose authority, and are subject to no one, but rule over all and in the end receive all the homage due to their artistic superiority.
– And the same is to be said of the sovereign power of personality. There is no equality of persons . in all spheres of life . . . . Everywhere one man is more powerful than the other, by his personality, by his talent, and by circumstances. Dominion is exercised everywhere . . . not by virtue of a State investiture, but from life; sovereignty itself.
– In relation herewith, and on entirely the same ground of organic superiority, there exists, side by side with this personal sovereignty, the sovereignty of the sphere. The University exercises scientific dominion; the Academy of fine arts is possessed of art-power; the guild exercises a technical dominion; the trades-union rules over labor—and each of these spheres or corporations is conscious of the power of exclusive judgment and authoritative action, within its proper sphere of operation.
Going on to speak of the family with “parental authority” rooted “in the very life-blood and” . . . proclaimed in the fifth Commandment, Kuyper observed that “God rules in these spheres, just as supremely and sovereignly through his chosen virtuous as He exercises dominion in the sphere of the State itself, through his chosen magistrates” ( pp. 95, 96). On the basis of this Sovereignty of God, given by Him according to Kuyper to the individual spheres, “A people therefore which abandons to State Supremacy the rights of the family, or a University which abandons to it the rights of science, is just as guilty before God as a nation which lays its hands upon the rights of magistrates. And this struggle for liberty is not only declared permissible, but is made a duty for each individual in his own sphere” (p. 98).
Professor Van Groningen, writing on this subject in the January issue of THE OUTLOOK, stated that “sphere sovereignty does not mean a societal sphere is sovereign in its own right. It does not mean that any person is sovereign in any sphere of life.” A careful reading of these writings of Kuyper shows, however, that this is exactly what he on these occasions said it did mean. Of course, he always qualified this by saying that “Sovereignty” must be under God. But he stated most emphatically that the independent spheres and the men in office in those spheres, the geniuses, artists, or others who ruled in them, had “nothing above themselves but God.”
KUYPER’S “SPHERE SOVEREIGNTY” IN THE LIGHT OF SCRIPTURE
How could Kuyper justify such a principle of “sphere sovereignty”? In his Free University speech he answered those who might question whether this principle is biblical by saying that they should consider first “the organic faith-principle of Scripture in its depths” and then notice David’s coronation by Israel at Hebron, Elijah’s opposition to Ahab’s tyranny, the apostles’ refusal to yield to police order in Jeruzalem, and the Lord’s remarks concerning the apostles’ refusal to yield to police order in Jeruzalem, and the Lord’s remarks concerning the tribute money on what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God (p. 25).
Professor Van Riessen frankly admits that, “Of course the Bible does not give us a theory of sphere-sovereignty. To expect such would be the highest of folly. The term is nowhere to be found. But when once aware of the creation principle for the organization of society, we do find in the Bible a self-evident harmony with that principle; in agreement, of course, with the historical development of social practice.” “Kuyper arrived at the idea of sphere-sovereignty because he observed in history that where this principle was violated, life was brought into distress and society reached a dead end.”
In other words, this “system” of Kuyper was admittedly not a plain teaching of the Scriptures but his practical, speculative and somewhat tentative conclusion from his observations of history and practical politics! Van Riessen further admits: “The writings of Kuyper himself on his subject sometimes present difficulties. One has the impression that they are caused by certain scholastic ideas.” And he proceeds to point out obvious inconsistencies in Kuyper’s views (Van Riessen, pp. 73, 74, 75 ).
Although the Bible teaches us that “we must obey God rather than men’· when government orders us to disobey Him (Acts 5:29), and that we must “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s” (Matt. 22:17ff.) it certainly gives no ground for a theory of human relations which divides all of life into competitive spheres, each of which “has the God-given right and duty and power to break and avenge any resistance it encounters” and the authorities in which are under no one but God! Could one imagine principles more completely opposed to those the Lord taught his disciples when He said: “Ye know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Not so shall it be among you: but whosoever would become great among you shall be your minister and whosoever would be 6rst among you shall be your servant: even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:25–28).
Similarly Paul, instead of dividing Christian life into such independent spheres, lays down the principle: “For even as we have many members in one body, and all the members have not the same office so we, who are many, arc one body in Christ, and severally members one of another” (Rom. 12:4). In I Corinthians 12:12ff. Paul stresses the same basic principle that Christians are all members of the one body and that therefore each must use his particular gifts to profit the whole (vs. 7).
Ephesians 5:21ff. reminds us that we must always be “subjecting ourselves one to another in the fear of Christ,” proceeding to apply this general injunction to Christians in their various relationships (or “spheres”): husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and slaves.
Similarly, Peter in his first letter admonishes Christians not to fight for personal or “sphere” sovereignties, but to “Be subject to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, addressing particularly servants, wives and husbands” (2:13ff.). He reminds especially elders not to behave “as lording it over the charge allotted to you, but making yourselves examples to the flock,” concluding, “Likewise ye younger be subject unto the elder. Yea, all of you gird yourselves with humility to serve one another” (5:3, 5).
Can one find anywhere in all God’s Word any order to Christians that each in his or her sovereign position is called to “break and avenge any resistance he or she encounters”? While government, indeed does have such a limited authority to use force and avenge evil (Romans 13), the individual Christian is forbidden to take this role (Romans 12:19) and commanded to follow a totally different, even opposite course in his relations with his fellow men. The Lord commanded us to fight against evil, not against Christians in other spheres.
“SOVEREIGNTY” OF DOOYEWEERD AND HIS FOLLOWERS
While Dr. Kuyper advanced the idea of “sphere sovereignty” somewhat speculatively and tentatively, with a view especially to government problems, Professor H. Dooyeweerd and his followers especially in North America have carried the development of the theory much further and into other fields.
Professor Van Groningen in his article cautioned us that the “societal spheres” are not to be identified with the “philosopher’s modalities of reality.” While (his is true, we should also observe that Dooyeweerd in the Foreword of his great A New Critique of Theoretical Thought (p. vi) informs us that “One of the fundamental principles of this ncw philosophy is the cosmological basic principle of sphere-sovereignty suggested by ABRAHAM KUYPER . . . On this principle rests the general theory of the modal law spheres . . .” In other words, Dooyeweerd’s “modalities” were in principle an application of Kuyper’s “sphere-sovereignty” ideas not only to human relationships but to all of reality! And Dooyeweerd’s system is really a further development of the “sphere-sovereignty” theory Kuyper suggested. It is therefore not surprising that the AACS followers of Dooyeweerd’s philosophy constantly promote the sphere-sovereignty theory as a basic, organizing principle. A number of the peculiarities of the AACS movement that otherwise seem mystifying become quite intelligible when one sees them as a “runaway” development of this “sphere-sovereignty” theory.
To understand the AACS development we must notice one important difference between it and Kuyper. Kuyper, although he shows that his more extreme views on this subject were derived from his observations of creation and history rather than from any plain Bible teaching, was in general still restrained in this as in other matters by a high respect for the Bible as the Word of God. The AACS movement, however, does not operate under this restraint. Its spokesmen increasingly warn us against exaggerating the role of the Bible since it is only one of several “forms” of the word of God (To Prod the Slumbering Giant, pp. 30, 167, 168; Will All the King’s Men, pages 154, 182, 184, for examples). Dr. H. Hart has told us that the Bible’s inspiration is not unique but is also given to other men (The Challenge of Our Age, pp. 118, 119, 130, pp. Note 5). And A. De Graaff stated that Kuyper was mistaken in thinking that he could derive principles in sociology, psychology or even theology from the Bible. If we are not to be misled in such matters we should be guided by considering the “creational ordinances” with the help of Dooyeweerdian philosophy! (The Educational Ministry of the Church, pp. 156–158). This downgrading of the Bible opens the way for developments of the “sphere-sovereignty” idea in ways which Kuyper would never have endorsed.
THE NEW SPHERE SOVEREIGNTY AT WORK
Perhaps someone might say, “Why should we trouble ourselves with such an argument about words? What is the difference whether one is an enthusiast for ‘sphere sovereignty ‘or skeptical about it?” This is mere philosophical argument. Consider a few of the results that appear from accepting the notion of independent sovereign spheres and human sovereignties that have no one over them but God:
– A young couple decide to live together without the formalities of marriage, justifying their action by appealing to this principle that neither state nor church has any legitimate right to interfere in the sovereign sphere of the family!
– A Christian school teacher teaching English decides to require that his students read a modern novel that is liberally sprinkled with profanity and obscenities. When parents or the school board object he defends his procedure by an appeal to the principle of spheres sovereignty as in this case it is embodied in his “educational creed”; “The responsible freedom of the scholar must be protected against any constraint or domination of church, state, industry or other social structure” (AACS Educational Creed; compare To Prod the Slumbering Giant, pp. 28, 34, 169, where parents and the board are assigned a concern only with the “spiritual” and “religious direction” of the school, leaving educational matters to the sovereignty of teachers).
– Again, when the church takes a position on such a matter as birth control or Sunday observance, this is condemned as an invasion of the sphere of the family (John A. Olthuis, “Hidden Invaders of our Homes” in Hope for the Family, p. 30). The church, therefore, is forbidden by this sphere sovereignty doctrine to speak or take decisions on matters that pertain to any other spheres. It must stick to its own “cui tic sphere” or what goes on in the walls of its own building. At the same time there has been a barrage of criticism by the AACS (recall the books Out of Concern for the Church and Will All the King’s Men) against the church because it has been too narrowly preoccupied with its own institutional matters! In other words, it is being mercilessly attacked and condemned by the AACS both for confining itself to its own sphere and for not doing so!
These are just a few examples that show the demoralization and destruction that this version of “sphere sovereignty” is bringing into our homes, schools and churches when it is brought into practice.
Notice that these examples are not just illogical or erratic departures from good, accepted principles, possibly due to immaturity or excessive zeal, as some of us used to think. They are logical and quite consistent applications of this version of “sphere sovereignty” which enthusiasts are promoting among us. (The more radical and extreme members of a new movement often show more clearly the direction in which it is going than its more moderate followers who are still restrained by old principles they inconsistently retain.)
The problem is not that some are carrying a good theory “too far,” it is that, adopted as the basic organizing principle, this theory starts people off in a wrong direction.
A theory of sphere sovereignty which takes sovereignty to mean, as Kuyper once defined it as the “right, the duty and the power to break and avenge, any resistance it encounters,” must pit each “sphere” against each other and produce the kind of unrestrained and destructive attacks on the church that abound in such a book as the AACS’ Out of Concern for the Church.
Rudolf Van Reest in his intriguing little Terugzien na Viifentwintig Jaren (p. 164) observes that the writers of that book appear in the role of soldiers shooting from the bunker of their own sovereign scientific “sphere” at the other sovereign sphere of the church rather than as church members in the office of believers. This version of “sphere sovereignty,” consistently applied, creates a state of civil war in which the members of each sphere, heavily armed must seek to “break and avenge” any restraint they may encounter from another sphere. Could there be a grosser caricature of the communion of saints than this, or any principle more certain to destroy any individuals or institutions that set out to practice it? Galatians 5:15 warns us: “If ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another”; and James 3;15 even warns us that the principle of rivalry as “faction” is not a “wisdom that cometh down from above, but is earthly, sensual devilish.”
Notice the turn that this development of “sphere sovereignty” is taking. Abraham Kuyper, seeing the anti-Christian spirit of revolution and anarchy arising in all areas of life, set out as obedience to Christ the King to counteract it by calling upon men to acknowledge the sovereignty of God. His political movement took the name “Anti-Revolutionary.” This new movement, claiming to follow and elaborate on some of his ideas of “sphere sovereignty” moves in an opposite direction and becomes revolutionary.
The AACS writings reveal a rather consistent and pronounced bias especially against anything “conservative,” and an instinctive sympathy (though combined with gentle criticism) for what is new and revolutionary. This together with the “sphere-sovereignty” hostility to all kinds of (other) sovereignties in this time of widespread attack on all kinds of authority gives it a special appeal to many young people, encouraging them to oppose parents, church, school and every other kind of authority.
Abraham Kuyper warned us in Pro Rege of the many pitfalls that exist especially in the area of society and of the way the devil has evidently selected that as a base for his attack on God’s rule. Now we are seeing some of Kuyper’s followers, less restrained and guided by the Scriptures than he, stumbling into and leading the churches and schools, in as far as they follow them, into the very pitfalls against which Kuyper warned us.
In a previous article I traced the way in which Kuyper’s enterprises for the sake of Christ the King have been shaken or fallen apart in our time. A study of what happened to his ideas of sphere-sovereignty shows in some further detail how this process of deterioration is at work, also among us. For the remedy we will have to turn, like Kuyper and every other real reformer in church history, back to the Scriptures and the Lord of the Scriptures. The Lord and His Word are the only foundations for our faith and life. What is truly built on that will stand, what is built on other foundations will not (Luke 6:47–49).