Jeff: I see it like this: All duty is properly understood in terms of "where much is given, much is required; where little is given, little is required." That seems to imply that duty distinctions are, at root, due to capacity (or, at least, original capacity) distinctions. And if that's the case, the only reason why sphere sovereignty makes the sense it does is because those responsible for certain duties to God simply ARE the ones most capable of doing it best.

But what the State will argue is that those spheres that have traditionally had more authority failed in that authority and that the State ought to, therefore, intervene. But what they won't be consistent with is that all "ought's" are only rationally discernable in terms of benevolent-theism. And they don't want to publicly avow that fact because of the problems it creates for maintaining support from some of their constituents. And every vote counts any more.

Brandon: Can’t say I understand what you are saying with regard to, “ But what they won't be consistent with is that all "ought's" are only rationally discernable in terms of benevolent-theism.” What I understand you to mean is that you are saying that some politicians will not acknowledge publicly the theological grounding of sphere sovereignty because this will cause them to lose votes. If that is what you are saying then I really don’t see this as problematic because one doesn’t have to publicly explain their theological reasoning behind every law they are making in order to set this framework up into place.

Secondly, yes, I agree that certain sphere’s have failed in their authority to carry out their responsibility. However, this failure is a little more complicated. This is where I might agree with some conservatives complaints about “big government” (though I think big vs. small government thinking makes not much sense as when you ask a conservative where the line should be drawn, outside of the constitution, they don’t have much of a problem with governmental involvement in many areas of life [mostly] short term). The problem according to these thinkers is not so much one “giving up” their authority (though that is happening in the midst of things as well), but rather it being taken away. That is why Skillen warns throughout much of his writings against government omni-competence. There is, this encroaching on your sphere of authority and little by little you give it up. THAT is another God--an idol.

Also, while I agree with what you are saying about politicians using rhetoric to make citizens think and feel as if they are agreeing with their values when in reality those politicians don’t have their interests at heart at all so then they don’t practice full disclosure I would say yes and no to this. The problem is that what you are saying sinks back into the status quo of politics as well immediately forgets what I’m saying here about sphere sovereignty. There’s that ghost of “status quo” that is working in the background.

Let me say it like this. Yes. This happens. No. Not EVERY politician works this way. Some really do go into politics with certain agendas and change what they promised when they get into their position of power. Others do not. They have an agenda with good and noble intentions because of how they perceive good and evil in the world and they attempt to carry that out. Sometimes they realize they have to compromise (which we all do) and then their constituents become upset because they, as the constituents don’t understand how politics works. They think ANY compromise is bad or they may think that compromise is fine in the mundane day-to-day affairs of personal preference but not in fundamental matters. The problem is that these people mix up what is fundamental principle from law. A law is not itself a principle. A principle is something that needs to be worked out in the variableness of concrete historical situations. Think of Tiger Woods. It’s been said that Tiger Woods is not a great golfer because he plays within the rules. He is a great player because he has learned what the millions of possibilities are within the rules and has the skills and intelligence to act out those possibilities. Rules may tell us what we are trying to win and what we cannot do. They give normative direction. But we still have to learn how to play and know the myriads of possibilities are within the rules. Politics always involves knowing the world and very real questioning, probing, trying (experimenting?), learning and revising as we struggle to act well in our historical situation. So, we really shouldn’t view all politicians as evil.

Also, another point that gets back to what I said about “forgetting immediately what sphere sovereignty is about.” Skillen says citizens and interest groups seeking their own agendas are acting with a “general moralism” (usually thought of in terms of moral issues). Both the Right and the Left have their “general moralism(s)” They see something as wrong or evil or bad and they want to make a law against it prohibiting that action, relationship or what have you.

Let’s pick on Jerry Falwell for example. Falwell one time said, “We do not oppose civil rights for homosexuals. We do oppose “special rights” for homosexuals who have chosen a perverted lifestyle rather than a traditional way of life.”

Now think of this. Farwell (and those representatives of the RR today) have some important questions to answer first. Not only must they answer why this one sin is the target of public opposition over others sins but in what specific sense should the public law of government oppose homosexual relationships? What is essentially missing in all these arguments (from both the right and left) is an argument FROM political principle and for legal specificity. That is, what needs to be answered are questions that distinguish clearly between the proper responsibility of government and the responsibilities that belong to other institutions. See the point? This is not about my pro-family interests or agendas. It is not about homosexual interests or agendas. It comes down again to whose responsibility is whose? So screw the interests groups and agendas and general moralisms. Politics at base is not about competing interests. It’s become that? But its not suppose to be about that. One of the problems of liberalism in the classic sense. You’ve got all these individuals with their competing interests using politics to get their share of the pie when it is not about “getting your share” but about ensuring that you carry out your responsibility in your sphere and someone else or some other relationship or institution carry out their responsibility. The “bottom-line” about anything is sphere sovereignty and responsibility. Part of the problem for me is that of the citizenry and their expectations. Yeah, some politicians will not put aside their own political careers, but God has not called us to ensure that these we will be successful but whether we will humbly attempt to work in the process at all (as said earlier). It certainly doesn’t help when whole swaths of Christians don’t take their citizenry in the kingdom of the city of man seriously though.