How is God Sovereign?

This is the second article in a series giving an overview of two central concepts in Abraham Kuyper’s public theology. For a primer on common grace, see my article from last month.

Having recently moved to New York City, I’m daily reminded of how small I am within this daunting, diverse, and driven world. Suddenly, the universe truly doesn’t revolve around me. As recently as this past spring, I was a graduate student at a small liberal arts school in a mid-size city in the South, pridefully assured of my ability to perform on a standardized test or to solve a world-injustice in a critical paper. Now, I am an inexperienced accountant working in one small cubicle of a big company in a big building in a bigger city, a minor contributor to an economy that would surely continue without me. I sometimes wonder, is God sovereign over all this?

In a recent article on this website, Micah McMeans wrestles with the question, “How can God be completely sovereign if free willed creatures exist?” This question, no doubt, is an important one, having implications for how one views humanity’s contingent nature, God’s work in the salvation of the individual, and God’s relationship to time. Indeed, last year I wrote an article on predestination in light of Calvinism and Molinism. Though this is a key question for the thoughtful Christian, I’m convinced that it is insufficient for grappling with real-world implications of Christ’s sovereign reign. Reflection on God’s sovereignty should not only lead to a clearer understanding of the relationship between our free will and God’s sovereignty, but also to a fuller vision of how we ought to apply our free will in God’s world.

The second Psalm reads as a poignant reminder to the Christian that the Messiah is King over all. Not simply our times of prayer and study. Not merely Sunday mornings and the institution of the Church. But over all things. Part of the Psalm reads,

Why do the nations rage
and the peoples plot in vain?
The kings of the earth set themselves,
and the rulers take counsel together,
against the Lord and against his Anointed, saying,
“Let us burst their bonds apart
and cast away their cords from us.”
He who sits in the heavens laughs;
the Lord holds them in derision.
Then he will speak to them in his wrath,
and terrify them in his fury, saying,
“As for me, I have set my King
on Zion, my holy hill.”1

Abraham Kuyper, 19th century Dutch theologian and politician, echoed these scriptural truths in a speech given to inaugurate the Free University of Amsterdam. In it, he argues forcefully for a distinct vision of private Christian education, utilizing a theology and political philosophy of “sphere sovereignty.”

As a theological notion, sphere sovereignty begins as this essay did, with a proclamation of the Lordship of Christ. As the title “King of the Jews” was placed over the cross of Christ, so he continues in his resurrection as King over all which he created. Kuyper declares, “If you believe in Him as Deviser and Creator, as Founder and Director of all things, your soul must also proclaim the Triune God as the only absolute Sovereign.”2 Kuyper emphasizes what ought to be obvious but we often miss—the same God who created the universe also cares deeply about the course of human history.

So, what did God create when he fashioned the world? This sounds like an easy enough Sunday school question, one may easily reply “everything!” Kuyper responds to this question with a more complex response, believing that not only did God create all that we see—nature, animals, humans, etc.—but that God has imbued within creation a certain order. This order of creation Kuyper calls “spheres,” interdependent institutions that together constitute the flourishing of humanity. These include, among others, the family, the economy, the state, morality, the arts, and so on.3 Kuyper conceives of these arenas of human existence as having its own “domain,” its own independent authority that other spheres ought not encroach upon.

As a concept, “sphere sovereignty” thus has a double meaning, referring both to the God who is sovereign over the spheres, and the spheres having sovereignty within themselves. The term’s double meaning also explains how God could at once be sovereign over human history, and the world operating without continual divine intervention. Kuyper elucidates, “This supreme Sovereign once and still delegates his authority to human beings, so that on earth one never directly encounters God Himself in visible things but always sees his sovereign authority exercised in human office.”4 Kuyper’s theological view of society explains what many theological treatises ignore; God is deeply concerned not only with the macro of human history and the micro of individual souls, but also with the institutions in between that we interact with on a daily basis.

This is all well in good in theory, one may say, but how does it relate to the real world? Kuyper’s speech has a number of practical examples for our lives. First, though the state is entrusted with the role of mediator of the spheres, and thus has a distinct power in society, it must guard against the perpetual temptation of authoritarian “Caesarism.”5 Kuyper’s theology thus guards against an overreaching government without being individualist or anarchist. The state, within its role, must be a virtuous institution, existing “not for itself but on behalf of the other spheres,” inhibiting “any sphere’s drive to expand and dominate a wider domain.”6

Second, the state is not the only sphere with the will to power. Monopolistic power and corruption must be resisted and reformed wherever it is found, and these problems can be recognized where one sphere denies the freedom and authority of another. Kuyper’s thought in today’s context, to give a couple examples, would likely result in resistance against corporate lobbying power (business sphere overreach into the state sphere), and the state’s attempts to curtail religious freedom as in the recent “burkini” crackdown in France (state sphere overreach into religion’s sphere).

Third, Kuyper’s vision of sphere sovereignty gives us Christians a fuller theology. God is deeply concerned about our Monday-Saturday lives, our work, family, and times of rest. Indeed, Kuyper, towards the end of his speech, speaks his most famous words, “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: ‘Mine!’”7 And we are not left to our own devices to make this sovereignty a reality, God has gifted us his grace such that flourishing can exist even in a fallen world. Christ’s title as “Lord” is also given new dimensions, as his death and resurrection conquered not only sin and death, but all earthly powers that challenge his reign “on earth as it is in heaven.” The Christian hope also comes into clearer focus, as God’s vision for the world is not to abandon it but to rescue all facets of life from the effects of sin. One day, our feeble friendships will give way to blessed community, our economies will produce fruitful labor for all, and our worship will be in unity and in truth.

[wpex more=”View Sources” less=”Hide Sources”]

1. Psalm 2. Scripture quotations are from The ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
2. Bratt, James D. Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 466.
3. On this point, Kuyper does not analytically define what constitutes a “sphere” and what does not.
4. Ibid., 466.
5. Ibid., 469.
6. Ibid., 468.
7. Ibid., 488.

Photo was taken from Martin at https://www.flickr.com/photos/ugod/5350513540 (no changes were made)[/wpex]

Comments

7 responses to “How is God Sovereign?”

  1. […] via How is God Sovereign? — Conciliar Post […]

  2. Kenneth O'Shaughnessy Avatar
    Kenneth O’Shaughnessy

    This is where I find myself disagreeing: Kuyper elucidates, “This supreme Sovereign once and still delegates his authority to human beings, so that on earth one never directly encounters God Himself in visible things but always sees his sovereign authority exercised in human office.” I think one ALWAYS encounters God himself in physical things – in fact, it’s pretty much the only way humans can encounter God. Just so happens some of those physical things are other people.

    But other than that I get his point 🙂

    1. Elizabeth Avatar

      proof of poet in you, to summarize much of what I said in length so concisely! 🙂

      1. Elizabeth Avatar

        Ha! so I wrote a long post and discus thought it spam; it may be posted here, someday! 🙂 All I will say for now is that the length of my responses, whether they post or not, are the demonstration of my excited nature to discuss such ideas! 🙂 if what I posted here does not post today, will see about having it post by tomorrow. I wrote a long ‘I love this but what about this and this’ response to this very well written article!

    2. George Aldhizer Avatar
      George Aldhizer

      Thanks Kenneth and Elizabeth for your comments. I really appreciate yalls substantive interaction with the article. When I started typing up that quote, I thought maybe a Catholic/Orthodox would disagree, and I struggled to understand what exactly Kuyper meant by the statement (Kuyper is not the most careful writer/speaker)

      I do not think Kuyper was making a comment regarding the merits of a sacramental worldview (I myself have not read enough Kuyper to know how sacramental his worldview is), I think his emphasis was more on the “directly” part of “one never directly encounters.” His point, I believe, was to speak to Gods delegation of authority to human beings (and being sovereign even while delegating), and the responsibility that human beings have to be virtuous as leaders in our various spheres.

      That being said, I myself would disagree with an anti-sacramental worldview. As to my “without continual divine intervention” point, I did not mean this in a deistic sense, but to say that God does delegate his authority over the world to us (we are and are called to be his body and his image). I probably should’ve been more careful in my writing on that point.

      Elizabeth, I totally agree with all five of your points you note in your comment. While in many ways I am moving to be more sacramental than the Reformed theology/practice I’ve come to experience, I don’t think that most of Protestantism, and Reformed circles in particular, lives in a “two story universe”. Although, I do agree with the critique that much of Protestantism, perhaps especially evangelicalism, is more comfortable with a two storied worldview.

      1. Elizabeth Avatar

        Hi George, thanks for your comments! I would not of realized they were here if you had not told me via another post that you replied to, so thanks for the heads up!

        Right. I get what you are saying. I would say that not only are we called to be His body and in His image, but HIS image is in all of us and that our job as a Christian is to have this image of Christ in us purified; the EO view is that the image of God is very marred in us by our sins/sinful world we live in. On this level, the goal of every Christian is to, as St. Seraphim would say, is to acquire the Holy Spirit.

        I don’t know if Kuyper is at all sacramental; surely he did not believe that the Eucharist has the Presence of Christ. But I don’t know enough; TJ who writes here may though. It’s clear that he knows a lot more about this author than I do.

        I can say that my understanding of what Kuyper did for gov’mt and his lasting impact on Holland’s political structure is desirable over what the US has (my husband knows a lot about this as he is a distributist with some libertarian leanings). He’s clearly an important person in terms of impact on culture!

        Thanks for commenting on mine and hearing my comment in the charitable (and excited) spirit it was given in!

  3. Elizabeth Avatar

    I’ve been told to repost my comment, it’s long but as I said below, demonstrates my excitement to be talking about such ideas!

    Well thought out article!

    I went to RBC (Reformed Bible College) for 1 semester before transferring to Trinity Western in BC – RBC now rebranding itself as ‘Kuyper College’ so clearly he is a very pivotal writer and theologian for Reformed Christians! So I am quite interested in what you are writing here (even though my personal journey has resulted in me being Eastern Orthodox for 12 years now). I can see why you would love Kuyper so much, he clearly has a lot to offer in terms of his view and understanding of God’s Magnificence, Being the Almighty who being GOD is sovereign. I really appreciated this:
    “Kuyper emphasizes what ought to be obvious but we often miss—the same God who created the universe also cares deeply about the course of human history.”

    I think it is really hard to communicate in the milieu of today’s culture and communicating both that God is GOD and as God He cares deeply about each human and the suffering they experience. I can’t say enough about how *important* it is to see that God’s Sovereignty/Providence is not antithetical to His deep care about not only human history but *each person* on this earth, past, present and future. The beautiful hymn ‘O the Deep Deep Love of Jesus’ comes to mind here.

    You also write: “a more complex response, believing that not only did God create all that we see—nature, animals, humans, etc.—but that God has imbued within creation a certain order. “ … I can really appreciate and agree with this! I read (can’t remember where, online? Touchstone magazine? Gilbert Mag? Chronicles?) where I read an article that I felt was really good, though I found it a bit weak in the ending, but what stayed with me is that the author asked someone (a mechanic maybe?) who was working with his hands what was wrong with society today. And the immediate answer was a denial of a hierarchical order to our world. This loss of the true metaphysical reality of how God has ordered our world is very profound in our world today, creating a great deal of confusion on many levels and layers of our society and culture today.

    This: – with *** to delineate parts I want to touch on – I do have some disagreements with you here. That said, please realize that I appreciate your article and your thoughts. While I am not CRC / Reformed in persuasion now, I have many family members who are and I deep love them and respect them. Indeed, as another author was talking about earlier, in discussing differences – between those who are both our friends and even ‘our enemies’ (obviously I am writing to you in the position of ‘friend ‘ NOT enemy!) (see article here https://prahlowjacob-pvcnh.wpcomstaging.com/philosophy/the-value-and-danger-of-loving-your-enemies/) writes on how important it is to care and love (while still being able to disagree/maintain one’s viewpoint). Anyway, all that to say, with respect, I write the following in relation to your article…

    You quote:
    “The term’s double meaning also explains how God could at once be sovereign over human history,
    *****and the world operating without continual divine intervention.****
    Kuyper elucidates , “This supreme Sovereign once and still delegates his authority to human beings,
    *****so that on earth one never directly encounters God Himself in visible things****
    but always sees his sovereign authority exercised in human office.”

    About this sentence:
    *****and the world operating without continual divine intervention.****

    I think rather that God *is* more present than this. I think His Presence, His work and many moments of life can show God’s direct intervention. With no offence meant, this sentence sounds almost like ‘God the watchmaker’ that Deists believe (i.e. God created, is sovereign but for all practical purposes is fairly absent here).

    I realize that some would point out the word ‘continual’ and that it is not that Kuyper is denying God’s work in the world but that God is not at work in a way that is ‘continual’ and solves all problems down here. My husband and I had an enjoyable conversation last night about this. Basically he would say ‘God respects our free will and all *will* work out for *those who love God* but perhaps not for those who do not love God. I am not sure if I agree, need more time to think on that but I do agree at least that ‘all works out for those who *Do* love or try to love God.

    The former president of Trinity Western University, a wonderful Evangelical Christian, Dr. R. Neil Snider, had a lot of wonderful stories and a great faith in God. Someone in his family was directly healed of paralysis by God, for instance. His faith in God was very much rooted in the stories of the Bible, such as King David and Goliath and that God can indeed intervene in our world.

    I realize that my view can have some dis agreements – what I am writing here also is in line with my first article on CP (published yesterday). This article (on gaining peace and seeing God’s actions/will in my life) had a very interesting discussion, which I think is in line with the same discussion you are having. (I was gently disagreed with about my articulation of God’s providence in the world not solving all problems and therefore not being correct; to put it in one way, in my own paraphrase). There are many intellectual questions about God’s Sovereignty, our free will, why is there suffering in the world that one could get into there; of course this is not the focus or in the scope of your article…

    The other line I wanted to touch on:

    *****so that on earth one never directly encounters God Himself in visible things****

    While I agree that we never see God the Father face to face, Christ came on earth as the God-Man – in the Incarnation – so that God, in God the Son, how has a visible face. I know of many new Christians who had visions of Christ Himself – many former Muslims for instance – . I think the Incarnational theology of the EO would say the opposite in many ways:

    1. Prayer is an encounter with God as a Person (as He is Three Persons Undivided in One Holy Trinity)
    2. The material world can be sacramental. The biggest difference here is the understanding of what Reformed Christians call ‘The Lord’s Supper’ or ‘The Last Supper’ and we EO (and Catholics, Anglicans, many Lutherans, etc) would say has ‘the Real Presence’ of Christ within.
    3. We can see God’s face and touch in Creation, in the Saints, in a human being (i.e. all being made in the image of God)
    4. In ways that God *is* doing things in the world, small and big
    5. Christian theology (at least older versions including EO) is Incarnational (reason also we have icons of Christ, revealing Him visibly, with a face)

    I would say that this is perhaps part of a very significant difference, between Reformed and Eastern Orthodox theology. It reinforces to me what Fr. Stephen Freeman, in his book _Everywhere Present: Christianity in a One-Storey Universe_ is getting at. In a lot of ways, Protestantism, and, in this example, Reformed theology, is living in a ‘two story universe’ where God is ‘up there’ and humans are ‘down here’ and God’s ways don’t directly impact our world.

    Perhaps I am misunderstanding or not seeing the full picture you are writing on?

    I appreciated your ending of this article very much. Your article is very well written and these words, beautiful:

    “Christian hope also comes into clearer focus, as God’s vision for the world is not to abandon it but to rescue all facets of life from the effects of sin. One day, our feeble friendships will give way to blessed community, our economies will produce fruitful labor for all, and our worship will be in unity and in truth.”

    Amen, may this happen!

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Conciliar Post

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading