Should the government be able to say who can (e.g., the vaccinated) and who cannot (e.g., the unvaccinated) attend church? Should the government be able to tell the Christian school that only vaccinated teachers may be permitted to teach? As a result of governmental mandates relating to the pandemic, one hears voices advocating that Christians should take a stand against what is perceived as government âover-reachâ and, linked to this, one hears the term âsphere sovereigntyâ being used.
Sphere sovereignty
Back in the 1800s the highly influential Christian theologian and statesman Abraham Kuyper coined this idea of sphere sovereignty. He was concerned about governments becoming too powerful and muscling their way into all areas of life, and therefore Kuyper promoted the idea that the governments, as well as every other âsphereâ (e.g., the family and the church), should each restrict itself to its own sphere. Each sphere was said to have its own âsovereignâ authority structure and way of doing things that was unique to that sphere. Others have built on Kuyperâs âsphere sovereigntyâ, identifying a host of other spheres such as education, journalism, economics, unions, chess clubs, sports, drama, health and so on.
Connected to this was the idea that we, Christians, had to conquer each sphere for Christ. Each sphere or group, it was said, should develop its own authority and laws in submission to God and based on the distinctive features of that sphere. That might sound great but what happened was that, in trying to develop each sphereâs own unique character, laws were developed that departed from Godâs Word. More about that in a moment.
Kuyper did try to give some Biblical basis to his notion of sphere sovereignty. He referred to Genesis 1 which speaks of God creating everything according to its kind. But as Schilder points out, thereâs a lot of difference between âkindâ and âsphereâ. Kind in Genesis 1 refers to created things: trees, fish, elephants, people, etc. They donât live in their own separate âsphereâ but Scripture says that they all reproduce and live in accordance with their own kind, in accordance with the nature God has given them. Kuyper also referred to 1 Corinthians 15:23 which speaks of each being resurrected âin his own orderâ. Kuyper turned the word âorderâ into âsphereâ but Paul actually refers to the order relating to the resurrection from the dead: first Christ, then those at His return who belong to Him, then comes the end.[i]
Other supporters of sphere sovereignty have appealed to Genesis 2 and Ephesians 6 to âdemonstrateâ that the family is a sphere with its own âsovereignâ and distinctly separate authority structure, but a close study of these texts does not support this. There is no clear demarcation line between church and family in the sense that the family would be governed independent of the church with its own unique norms. Both are to be subservient to God and have a responsibility to one another.
That word âsovereigntyâ also raises questions. We know that God, who rules all creation, is sovereign. But is there an own separate sovereignty for each âsphereâ? People have tried to develop these but what we ended up getting was that, in the different spheres, laws were developed in relation to each sphere. For example, in the sphere of agriculture the âlaws of natureâ were said to rule sovereignly; in academia the law of logic; in the area of faith the person is sovereign; in the sphere of knowledge, truth is sovereign, etc. Too often what happened was that instead of God being sovereign we got something else, something that in effect compromised the clear norms of Godâs Word. Yet Godâs norms apply wherever the Lord has placed us: government, church, family, book club, sports group, etc. The commandments of the Lord are to be âsovereignâ in every so-called âsphereâ of life; and the confessions of the church, which the sphere sovereignty people wanted to restrict to the church, apply to all facets of life.
Ed Helder points out that, âdevelopments of sphere sovereignty led to the idea that each sphere should have its own creedâ. The Three Forms of Unity were then considered to be Church-only creeds, so the ânon-denominationalâ Christian schools in Canada gradually abandoned the Three Forms of Unity, the Christian Labour Association of Canada did the same, and all soon lost their Reformed character. âThis all was based on the Sphere Sovereignty dogma that no ecclesiastical creed may ever be used as the basis in another sphere!â[ii]
Hence this notion of the âsovereigntyâ of each sphere has been used as an excuse not to apply the confessions where one should. Around the time of the Church Liberation of 1944, two of the greatest developers of sphere sovereignty, Profs D H Vollenhoven and H Dooyeweerd, were rightly very critical of the way in which faithful ministers and others were kicked out of the church by synod. However, they did not liberate themselves from what had become a false federation of churches because, as academics of the Free University, they were in a different âsphereâ than the ecclesiastical âsphereâ of the church. Their confession about the church and the need to join the true church was ignored because of âsphere sovereigntyâ.[iii]
(Dis)obedience and sphere sovereignty
Today weâre seeing this notion of sphere sovereignty being used to disobey government mandates. The proponents suggest weâre not obliged to heed the government in this or that because (it is perceived to be) going outside its sphere of sovereignty. It should limit itself, they say, to exercising justice, maintaining peace and defending society against aggressors from without (warfare) and from within (murderers, rapists, robbers, etc.). Hence, they argue, for the government to demand that people be vaccinated is to overreach their sphere of justice by reaching into the sphere of health, the church, business and other spheres. If it were, for example, to require church-goers to be vaccinated, it would encroach on the sphere of the church. Demanding that teachers be vaccinated before they can teach would be to overreach into the sphere of schools. They point to Scripture to restrict the task of the government to justice and national defence but then suggest that when the government overreaches that defined area, we need not heed its directives.
However, whilst itâs true that the government bears the sword to execute justice and prevent evil, itâs surely not limited to that. Itâs also there so âthat everything be conducted ⌠in good orderâ and its task âincludes the protection of the church and its ministryâ (BCF:36). Moreover, Israel as church nation had many laws not restricted to justice and warfare, including laws that kept lepers outside the temple and city. Consider also the laws Calvin persuaded the City Council to introduce in Geneva so that not only in church but also in society things would be done decently and orderly. Men were not allowed to wear long hair; women were not to wear too much gold and silver; clothing manufacturers were not to introduce new fashions without the city councilâs approval; etc.[iv] As for matters pertaining to health, when the Bubonic Plague (Black Death) ravaged Europe in the late Middle Ages through to the 1700s, various laws relating to quarantining those infected were introduced and enforced.[v] The government is there to promote the welfare of society. It must do so in subservience to God, in accordance with the moral laws of Godâs Word, just as we all are called to live according to those laws.
But even if did exceed its defined âsphereâ of authority, that would not necessarily mean that Christians shouldnât obey. Scripture clearly shows that we are to love, honour and obey the government (Romans 13, BCF:36, LD 39). [vi] The very careful and highly regarded Scripture exegete, Prof S Greijdanus, concludes that there is only one ground for disobeying the government, namely, when it commands or forbids something that is contrary to Godâs Word. For we must obey God more than men (Acts 4:19) even if we suffer loss, damage, punishment or even death.[vii]Â
So it was that Mosesâ parents and the midwives of that time disobeyed Pharaohâs command to drown the baby boys. Daniel disobeyed Dariusâs decree to worship only him for 30 days. His three friends disobeyed Nebuchadnezzarâs decree to bow before the golden image. The magi, in obedience to the Lord, disobeyed Herodâs instruction to tell him where the new-born king was. The apostles disobeyed rulers who forbade them to preach, because Christ had mandated them to proclaim the gospel. All these, and others, disobeyed the authorities because God had commanded otherwise.
Now we need to be careful that texts are not manipulated to construct arguments for disobeying the government. Â I recently heard of a sermon in which a minister questioned whether we could obey the government if it were to prohibit âantivaxxersâ from attending church services. He reasoned that âthe church is Christ made visibleâ and, since Jesus said, âCome to Me all you who labour and are heavy laden and I will give you restâ the âMeâ in this text is also the church. Since the unvaccinated are among those who âlabour and are heavy ladenâ they must be permitted to come to church in obedience to Christâs call. However, such reasoning is surely flawed. Although the church is to speak the Word of God, a careful exegesis of the texts to which the speaker referred does not appear to support this conclusion of attributing Jesusâ words to the church. So we need to be careful with our exposition of Scripture. Meanwhile, we thank our gracious God that a law forbidding the unvaccinated brothers and sisters from attending church has not been legislated and we pray that the Lord would graciously spare us from such a law.
To conclude: if the governmentâs requirements are not in clear contravention of Godâs Word, should we then not obey; even if we think the government overreaches? If it has not been clearly demonstrated (despite claims to the contrary) that Covid vaccinations are contrary to Godâs Word, would it not mean that institutions such as our schools, aged care home and special needs homeâall of which God has graciously given usâshould obey governmental mandates with regards to staff vaccinations, restrictions on attendance, mask wearing and other measures aimed at safeguarding lives and promoting the physical well-being of one another and society in general? We may not like aspects of particular mandates but surely here, too, the command to love God, to trust that He has all things in His fatherly hands (LD 9), and to âshow all honour, love and faithfulnessâ to all those in authority (LD 39) applies also in the current circumstances. He is the only sovereign over all the universe and has the heart of rulers in the palm of His hand. In that comfort let us obey our rulers and heed Christâs injunction to pray for âall who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverenceâ (1 Tim 2:1-2). The time may well come that we must encourage one another to disobey in order to remain faithful to God. That time is surely not now.
Â
[i] K Schilder, âWat zijn toch âterrainenâ en âkringenâ? (a series of three articles repudiating sphere sovereignty), De Reformatie, 1947, pp. 154/5, 162, 170/1.
[ii] Ed Helder, âDiscussion on the Philosophy or Theory of Sphere Sovereigntyâ, unpublished notes, 2022. For other bad outcomes of this theory see Reformed Politics – Important lessons H Ballast – Defence of the Truth
[iii] Rudolf van Reest, Schilderâs Struggle for the Unity of the Church, Inheritance Pub., Neerlandia, 1990, p. 372.
[iv] P A de Rover, Calvin: the Giant of Noyon, Pro Ecclesia Publishers, Armadale WA, 2022.
[v] See, for example, Daniel Defoeâs Journal of the Plague Year which shows how the magistrates obligated two people to watch each house door of infected people to make sure they didnât leave the house to infect others.
[vi] See also â⌠it pleases God to govern us by their handâ – Defence of the Truth
[vii] S Greijdanus, âHouding ten aanzien van overheidsmaatregelingenâ, De Reformatie, 1947, p. 379.