|
Jeff: And couldn't we go so far as to say that there is no institution or individual that has the authority to compel or forcibly deter certain sins? But how do we derive the proper theory which accounts for which individuals and institutions are responsible for what?
Brandon: In terms of the church, it doesn’t matter whether she or some individual have the proper authority to compel or forcibly deter certain sins, the point is that a given church holds to or maintains a certain theological conviction whether that be church discipline or the status of women or tithing, etc, and government or any other institution should not compel the consciences of those citizens. Government can be said to act justly when it protects the consciences and the jurisdictional independence of ecclesiastical institutions so that all citizens and communities of faith (and no-faith) will be able to fulfill their confessional and institutional what? RESPONSIBILITIES.
This is how we discern who is responsible for what. It is what Skillen calls a “principled pluralism.” That is, we live in a highly differentiated society and each institution and organization and individual has a GOD GIVEN part to play. They have responsibilities. For a good government to do justice, it must respect both its own God-given limits AND the consciences of it’s citizens.
Second, the police have the authority to compel or forcibly deter certain sins, thus I would not say that no institution or individual doesn’t have the authority to do this. This is kinda where I have a problem with Dwayne’s “not saving life at all costs” idea. That seems to me to subvert all that I’m saying here with regard to justice and political and creational order that God created.
Third, your last question is a very interesting one because principled pluralism has had it’s critics. One of the biggest objections is that the lines aren’t always clearly defined. For example, the police sometimes DO punish your children and thus they act relatively in the authority of the parent. Or for example, the education of clergy (this was actually a problem for Abraham Kuyper)--should it take place in a church-controlled theological school or in a theology department housed in a “free” university? Though Kuyper argued for the latter (for various reasons) some opposed him with equal passion who were supporters of ecclesiastical sponsorship. So the sphere’s aren’t always clearly delineated and can be rather blurry at times.
In response to this, there can be some important things to learn from boundary setting which of all Christians, Kuyperian readers should especially note:
1. There can be a combination of at least two different modes of cultural association. However, while they can be COMBINED? They should not be CONFUSED ie. a dry cleaning business which is a “family business.” It is good to have as clear as possible a delineation of the differences between familial and the business relations, right?
2. Those who accept Kuyperian sphere sovereignty usually have a penchant for a rather complex framework for discerning boundary lines and making distinctions. However, I don’t think that all blurring of lines is negative. For example, along with such diversity and complexity and compartmentalization is the concern of the increasing threat of fragmentation in the patterns of human interaction. Though some are attracted to “an epistemological obsession with fragments,” they do so as a necessary means of avoiding “the tyranny of wholes.” So that’s not all bad. For those not attracted to this option there is the search for mergings and sytheses and connections between the various spheres. Which is to say that there are some Kuyperians who are interested in “sphere universality” to offset the fragmenting tendencies of the sphere sovereignty idea.
3. Though there is a search for this universality, again, there is the danger of sphere confusion. That is, sphere sovereignty can be used as a FRAMEWORK TO POINT to the dangers that lurk wherever people BORROW TOO HEAVILY from one sphere in spelling out proper patterns of interaction in another sphere. For example, though the church is a community of believers, it is considered a “family”--the family of God. There is something askew though with identifying a spiritual family as a literal family. Yes, they have important links, just as there are important links between the church and business ie. management teams, but they should not be confused. If the proper role of the church is to promote proper patterns of worship and service to God then the links, if anything, should be integrated in a healthy way with a view to fulfilling that larger mandate. To borrow too much from one sphere, is to inevitably suffer from distortions that these borrowings will effect.
4. We should avoid drawing too many boundary lines. Not all diversity is a good thing. Sometimes the Kuyperian sphere sovereignty scheme has been used in support of South African apartheid. Well, this should raise some red flags obviously.
5. We should not be overly optimistic about our ability to discern the proper contours of creation and of created culture. Though Kuyperian schematics may be a summary of what the Bible teaches, Kuyperians would do well to know that it is not always easy to see or even to know enough to look for, creation’s normativity simply by studying the Bible and then turning to the observation of our lived-in world. Kuyperians will need to explain as best as possible why they are convinced that sphere sovereignty and the implications that flow from it, while a speculative exercise? Are nonetheless the product of sanctified imaginations. Sphere, sovereignty is helpful in ways that it sensitizes us to important questions that arise when we wrestle with the very real quandaries and challenges of our complex lives. For example, Mario Cuomo’s reference of the United States as a family at the 1984 Democratic Convention. Nation-states are NOT families. We can learn a lot from people who possess the gift of making distinctions and sorting out the complexities of our social existence. But it is not merely for pragmatic purposes alone. The pragmatic serves and is integrally connected to the larger vision of God’s creating and redeeming purposes in our contemporary surroundings which calls for the gift of discernment in large measure.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
|