Secularists, including Christian secularists, which is most Christians, unfortunately, have a problem with Christianity exerting power in the political sphere of life. Because of a kind of Pietistic dualistic thinking, they believe that messy political stuff has to do with this world, not Christianity. But Scripture declares Jesus King of Kings and Lord of Lords, meaning he has ultimate authority and power over the politics and governments of nations. Before his ascension, Jesus declared that “All authority in heaven and on earth” has been given to him, and because of this he says:
19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
Notice, and I’m not sure how people miss this or explain it away, but it’s nations that are to be baptized, not merely individuals in nations. And everything Jesus taught, entire nations are to obey. What that looks like is up for debate, and Christians disagree, but what is not debatable is our obedience to Jesus’ command.
We do know, however, that a discipled nation, or a Christian nation, is not what its detractors say it is, a means of forcing people to believe and behave as Christians. That’s what liberals, progressives, and leftists (i.e., Democrats) do, not Christians. Rightly understood, a Christian nation is a self-governing nation with maximal liberty, like the United States of America for much of its history. Because America was a Christian nation, created because of Christian assumptions and beliefs about the nature of man, its government was limited. In the early 20th century with the rise of progressivism and secularism, government expanded its control over every area of life. That kind of totalitarian instinct is what secular government will always produce, and it is Christianity alone that stands in its way. Unless the state has a higher authority to which it is accountable, it will always tend toward Babel.
This brings us to the topic of this post, and a phrase most Christians are unfamiliar with, sphere sovereignty. I recently heard someone use a phrase which describes what this is: Kuyperian jurisdictional theology. I’ll get to Kuyper below, but in short, God has created different spheres of responsibility and authority, or jurisdictions, even as He has created hierarchy within those spheres to work out responsibility and authority. The person who used that phrase also said, the church is the government’s conscience, which means the pulpit, as well as the people, must address politics. Notice the church isn’t the government, a claim of the secularists, but the church keeps the government accountable. The government has a very narrow lane, and if it starts expanding its lane it begins to go outside of its jurisdiction and becomes tyrannical and unbiblical. The founders with few exceptions got this right, and modern America has veered far from their intentions. The concept of sphere sovereignty is a way to bring America back in line with those intentions.
The Necessity of Sphere Sovereignty
The concept of sphere sovereignty is critical in the never-ending battle against the spirit of Babel (Gen 11). All things without God in Christ tend toward a concentration of power, a profoundly unbiblical concept. That concentration is what Babel represents. God said if allowed to do this, then “nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.” It is this hubris of fallen, sinful man that Christianity and sphere sovereignty confronts with the dignity of the liberty of the children of God and all his creatures. And fallen, sinful man will do everything in his power to avoid having his power limited. Thus the ever present battle over the size and scope of government. Thankfully, the founders of America gave us a solid foundation upon which to build a Christian republic, and I think post Charlie Kirk’s assassination, more Christians than ever are realizing that our faith isn’t just personal or for church, but for all of life, including government and politics.
The concept of sphere sovereignty, while directly not found in Scripture, can be inferred from it. It was first introduced by the great Dutch theologian, statesman, and journalist Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) in a public address at the inauguration of the Free University of Amsterdam (Oct. 20, 1880). The question comes down to authority and who wields it. Absolute sovereign authority rests in God alone, and He has delegated His authority on earth to human beings. As Kuyper explains, “so that on earth one actually does not meet God Himself in things visible, but that sovereign authority is always exercised through an office held by men.” In this he asks two pertinent questions:
And in that assigning of God’s Sovereignty to an office held by man the extremely important question arises: how does that delegation of authority work? Is that all embracing Sovereignty of God delegated undivided to one single man; or does an earthly Sovereign possess the power to compel obedience only in a limited circle; a circle bordered by other circles in which another is Sovereign?
These circles (i.e., spheres) interact and overlap in society, but one sphere must never usurp the authority of the other. The only way this possibly works, and thus the only possibility of true liberty in any society, is the acknowledgement of the absolute Sovereignty of Christ. Kuyper explains why:
But behold now the glorious Freedom idea! That perfect and absolute Sovereignty of the sinless Messiah at the same time contains the direct denial and challenge of all absolute Sovereignty on earth in sinful man; because of the division of life into spheres, each with its own Sovereignty.
Stephen Wolfe explains it well in his book on Christian nationalism:
[I]t follows that every sphere of life requires a suitable authority, with a suitable power, to make determinations. For this reason, God has granted specific types of power by which the authorities of each sphere make judgments. The family has the pater familiar with patria potestas (“fatherly power”); civil life has the civil magistrate with civil power; the instituted church has the minister with spiritual power, and the individual has a power unto himself. The nature of each sphere dictates the species of power required. These powers and their differences are not arbitrary but arise from the nature of each sphere.
Although as a Thomist he attributes this to “natural law,” there is nothing natural about it. It is only when those in power acknowledge the power of God in Christ as the ultimate authority that the state will recognize its limits.
If we go back to ancient Israel, we can find the concept of religious freedom. The state has no authority to compel anyone to believe anything against their will. The religion of Israel was never imposed on the foreigner or alien. Jesus is a wonderful example of this because he went out of his way to discourage people from following or believing in him; it was their choice. Prior to Martin Luther at the Diet (assembly) of Worms in April 1521 declaring the freedom of conscience, Christians should have known better, but when the church got mixed in with the state, both became tyrannical. The individual in his thinking and actions has his own sphere of sovereignty within the confines of the law. While there were glimpses of this in English history, it wasn’t until the Puritan inspired first Great Awakening, and the American experiment in self-government coming in its wake, that true religious liberty was codified in the law of a nation.
Another aspect of life in ancient Israel implies the concept of spheres of authority. The Lord never allowed the offices of prophet, priest, or king in one person, until the Messiah came. Indeed, those offices pointed forward to one who would accomplish what all three intended, truth, mediation, and rule. Christ fulfills them all. King Uzziah is an example of someone who would not “stay in his lane.” He entered the temple to burn incense on the altar (2 Chron. 26), and God punished him for it. We also see Jesus affirming limited powers to the state when he said, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” This was truly revolutionary at the time, and would take many centuries through English history to eventually come to full fruition in America.
Before we talk a little about the spheres themselves, we as Christians must disabuse ourselves of the notion that any kind of secular state is the answer. Many Christians dislike the concept of “Christian nationalism,” but I ask if a nation is not to be Christian (again, in obedience to the Great Commission), what is it to be? Since no Christian wants our nation to be a Hindu or Muslim or Buddhist nation, they assume the only answer is secular, the state having no religious affiliation whatsoever. The problem, as we’ve seen in our time, is that state always assumes some ultimate moral standard to back up its laws. If that standard isn’t God in Scripture, it will be anti-God. In America and the West that is woke, DEI, and all the tyranny associated with it. Christians are delusional if they think there is a way to have a secular nation without that, or some other form of tyranny. Liberty is only possible in a Christian nation.
Differing Aspects of Sphere Sovereignty
There are three assumptions that undergird the concept of sphere sovereignty.
- The kingdom of God and the church are not identical. Wherever God reigns, which is everywhere, is where the kingdom is. Kuyper put it memorably:
There is not one square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is sovereign over all, does not cry, “Mine!”
- The priesthood of all believers means, for example, we are as fully priests in our work as is any pastor at a pulpit. In addition, man is God’s viceregent over creation, called to exercise dominion to rule over everything in creation.
- Neither the church nor the state rules over other spheres since each sphere is part of the kingdom and under God. One sphere cannot interfere with the other.
The only place where the state interferes with the other two is for public justice. If laws are broken in the church or home, the state has the right to “wield the sword,” just as I said the church is the conscience of the state.
Since there is no chapter and verse command or explanation of it, there will always be debate about the nature of the concept and its extent. In addition to these three foundational spheres, other spheres might be businesses, community organizations, charities, educational institutions, etc., but conceptionally the three are the most important. If the boundaries of these are not respected, all kinds of problems develop, as we’ve seen throughout history. The primary danger comes from the most powerful sphere, the state, usurping its limited, well defined role.
Most importantly is the state usurping its role when people think it has the authority over the family, especially, but in the church as well. There are many examples, but one of the most egregious began in the early 1960s with Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty.” Instead of families, private charities, and the church taking responsibility for the needs of the people, Americans allowed the government to take over that responsibility. As a result, all kinds of perverse incentives it created destroyed the black family. Black out of wedlock births in 1960 were approximately 25%, higher than white Americans, but far less than the 70% today. Sociologists agree that welfare created disincentives to build intact families, and the suffering that has resulted has been tremendous.
In fact, since the rise of progressivism in the early 20th century, the state has become not only a god but is seen as Savior as well. Think of what government now provides. The Bible says the state has the limited functions of justice and self-defense, but now government provides healthcare, food, clothing, shelter, unemployment wages, retirement, money, and tomes of books full of regulations. This is the battle of the modern age, and if we want the liberty bequeathed to us by America’s founding fathers, we must limit the scope and reach of government. The problem is that most Americans like their government to play daddy. The most pathetic example of this mindset was a video the Obama campaign put out in the 2012 election called, “The Life of Julia.” “The slide show narrative follows Julia, a cartoon character, from age 3 to age 67 and explains how Obama’s policies, from Head Start to Obamacare to mandated contraception coverage to Medicare reform, would provide Julia with a better life than Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan could.” I remember thinking at the time, is this what we’ve come to in America? Is this the land of the free, and the home of the brave, of rugged individualism? Indeed it is not.
A proper, biblical understanding of the state would see this for what it is, evil. Which is why it’s critical as Christians for us to be involved in politics and government to bring a Christian and biblical view to public policy. We can build on the growing awareness in the church that while we understand the unique spheres of state, church, and family, true human and societal flourishing can only come from insisting on a biblical orientation for our entire society in which Christ is acknowledged as the true king. This means, America must again become a Christian nation in obedience to Christ. Too many Christians denigrate this as “Christian nationalism,” and take all the worst examples of its proponents as evidence that it’s not biblical. We can debate what our Christian nation is and should be, and work toward that, but we should all agree, the goal of the Great Commission is that all nations should be Christian.
In America and the West we are fighting an uphill battle against Pietism and secularism, two sides of the same coin. Both view Christianity and religion as primarily personal, something for the home and church, but not to bring into the public square. Charlie Kirk’s influence, especially after his tragic death, has seemed to open many more Christians to this idea and how important it is. Secularism and the myth of neutrality, as if there could be a morally neutral public square, is being questioned by an increasing number of people. Sphere sovereignty is a helpful concept in convincing people that true liberty can only be had with a biblical understanding of the family, the church, and the state.
Recent Comments