A difficulty with Kuyperian sphere-sovereignty?

[RamistThomist]

I usually have a healthy respect for the neo-Calvinist (better known as Reformational Philosophy) tradition, but I've noticed a tension in Kuyper's sphere sovereignty (e.g., the spheres of church, family, and state don't intrude on the other): what is to keep the state from intruding on the other spheres? This is also the same problem in many "Constitutionalists:" They seem to think that "getting back to the Constitution" (presumably without the income tax) will guarantee liberty. Yet, liberty is often imperiled by 5-4 votes.

So, to tie both streams together, unless one has a gun to the head of the state (dear FEMA: That was meant metaphorically, not literally. Don't send me to a camp), there is no guarantee that the State will play by the rules. To quote a gospel song that was written the same time the State deposed Chief Justice Roy Moore, "Who will rule the rulers?"

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I'm not sure I understand how Kuyper's view of Sphere Sovereignty speaks to whether or not the State will overstep its bounds. One might argue that the WCF's admonition that the Magistrate has no business in Word and Sacrament or the ordination of any of its officers may be ignored by the State. How is that a criticism of the WCF that the State will disobey what the Word requires of it?

 

[Peairtach]

In a sinful world, the family, the church or the state can arrogate powers and responsibilities to themselves that God's Word forbids.

The more ungodly a society becomes the more likely this kind of thing is to happen.

 

[RamistThomist]

I'm not sure I understand how Kuyper's view of Sphere Sovereignty speaks to whether or not the State will overstep its bounds. One might argue that the WCF's admonition that the Magistrate has no business in Word and Sacrament or the ordination of any of its officers may be ignored by the State. How is that a criticism of the WCF that the State will disobey what the Word requires of it?

I thought about that, too, but many of the early WCF guys took up arms against the State in the backdrop of the National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant. Peter Lillback's dissertation on Calvin has an intro section explaining the above point: when the state breaks covenant, then the covenant is broken and there are consequences.(That is Lillback speaking, not Jacob the mild theonomist).

Kuyperianism, with the exception of a few Afrikaaner strains, lacks the Covenanter background which would provide the (perhaps literal, as in the case of the Covenanters and Bishops' Wars) gun to the head of the state.

 

[JML]

There is no such thing as religious liberty. One man's liberty is another man's slavery. Thus not all are free.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I thought about that, too, but many of the early WCF guys took up arms against the State in the backdrop of the National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant. Peter Lillback's dissertation on Calvin has an intro section explaining the above point: when the state breaks covenant, then the covenant is broken and there are consequences.(That is Lillback speaking, not Jacob the mild theonomist).

Kuyperianism, with the exception of a few Afrikaaner strains, lacks the Covenanter background which would provide the (perhaps literal, as in the case of the Covenanters and Bishops' Wars) gun to the head of the state.

But the "WCF guys" didn't argue they were going to war against the State as the Church. In other words, the Church was not commissioning generals nor did it assume to itself the government of the State after Cromwell prevailed.

Your last point may be valid but your initial criticism was the idea that distinguishing spheres of God-ordained authority in and of itself was a problem for Kuyper's idea of Sphere Sovereignty. The Westminster Standards themselves may not be Kuyperian in how they define those boundaries but the scope and limit of authority for the Church and the State are distinguished clearly and even the Individual is granted liberty from having the Church or State bind his conscience apart from the Word.

 

[RamistThomist]

I see what you are saying, and I mostly agree, but it pushes the problem back a step: if the Covenanters weren't going to war as the State, which seems to be the case since it was the State they were fighting, and they weren't going to war as the Church, per your gloss (and mine for now), and they weren't the family, then under what group were they going to war?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I see what you are saying, and I mostly agree, but it pushes the problem back a step: if the Covenanters weren't going to war as the State, which seems to be the case since it was the State they were fighting, and they weren't going to war as the Church, per your gloss (and mine for now), and they weren't the family, then under what group were they going to war?

The State. The King was at war with Parliament.

 

[RamistThomist]

I see what you are saying, and I mostly agree, but it pushes the problem back a step: if the Covenanters weren't going to war as the State, which seems to be the case since it was the State they were fighting, and they weren't going to war as the Church, per your gloss (and mine for now), and they weren't the family, then under what group were they going to war?

The State. The King was at war with Parliament.

The original Covenanters (1638, I think) went to war with Charles I. They defeated him in battle, which prompted him to raise taxes, which eventually prompted the English Civil War. The guys I am talking about predated the King vs. Parliament conflict. Of course, they were Scots, not English, though England did have a jurisdiction of sorts over Scotland.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I see what you are saying, and I mostly agree, but it pushes the problem back a step: if the Covenanters weren't going to war as the State, which seems to be the case since it was the State they were fighting, and they weren't going to war as the Church, per your gloss (and mine for now), and they weren't the family, then under what group were they going to war?

The State. The King was at war with Parliament.

The original Covenanters (1638, I think) went to war with Charles I. They defeated him in battle, which prompted him to raise taxes, which eventually prompted the English Civil War. The guys I am talking about predated the King vs. Parliament conflict. Of course, they were Scots, not English, though England did have a jurisdiction of sorts over Scotland.

I think it could be argued that the Covenanters were acting as the de facto State. Charles had broken a Covenant with them and when he sought to impose religious practices (acting beyond his power) they came together as a group. The idea of a Nation State hadn't even been formed yet so your observation that England had jurisdiction "of sorts" is just that. Whether we might recognize it as such, the head of a clan (or tribe) was a longstanding form of government. Had they not been united as a group it would have been impossible for them to resist. Clearly, the issue to obey the true religion of their consciences was the material cause but that doesn't mean that ministers of the Gospel became, de facto, the heads of clans or magistrates in the war that ensued. Incidentally, we still recognize military commanders as having magisterial authority over their troops. More recently, some are trying to remove that capacity but it's a longstanding tradition of Western culture or even human culture at large. Owen, for instance, was a chaplain to Cromwell and didn't serve in a military capacity though there is nothing Biblical that prohibits an Officer of the Church to be subject to a military commander and even take up arms in some circustances.