You are on page 1of 56

Christianity and Politics

A Reformational Perspective1
Chris Gousmett


The contents of this study were first presented in 1991 as a series of lectures at Knox Theological Hall under the auspices of the Faculty of Theology, University of Otago, for a degree course in systematic theology !hile some of the references to the political situation in "ew #ealand have $ecome somewhat dated, the $asic policies followed have not changed and the analysis and criti%ue offered here would not $e any different today &1999' The material has thus not $een revised apart from minor stylistic changes and a few additional footnotes 1 of 56

© Chris Gousmett

(ntroduction 1 *hristianity and +olitics (ntroduction -ohannes .lthusius .$raham Kuyper Herman 1ooyeweerd 3 The "eo4*alvinist articulation of a *hristian !orld4view 5eligion *reation The cultural mandate The Fall 5edemption 7schaton ) 8phere sovereignty as a theory of society Kuyper in opposition to the *onstantinian model 5ule of the strongest 1ifferentiation and disclosure of society .n example from "ew #ealand "eo4*alvinist view of the church The responsi$ility of the state -ustice according to the "eo4*alvinist theory 9 The nature of :ustice and human rights Human rights ; origin and theories -ohn <oc=e "o definition of :ustice The 8criptural view of rights Human rights and :ustice not human conventions The pro$lem of political rights and issues . *hristian view on rights and :ustice Herman 1ooyeweerd and > * ?er=ouwer , The tas= of the institutional church in relation to the state 8overeignty of church and state The neo4*alvinist concept The tas= of the church in relation to the state The 8criptures and political life -ustice and the !ord of >od The tas= of the institutional church *oncluding remar=s ?i$liography ) , , / 0 12 1, 16 10 32 32 33 3) 39 39 3, 3, 3/ )2 )2 )1 )) )) ), ), )6 )9 92 91 93 9, 9, 96 9/ 99 ,2 ,3 ,3 ,9

© Chris Gousmett

2 of 56

These chapters ta=es their starting4point in a $oo= $y "icholas !olterstorff, Until Justice and Peace Embrace,3 which deals with the neo4*alvinist vision of .$raham Kuyper and his spiritual heirs, giving a criti%ue of <i$eration Theology on the one hand, and world *apitalism on the other, from the perspective of a radical *alvinist position !olterstorff says that his lectures arise from confronting a paradox of his own up$ringing in a conservative *alvinist tradition, where the rather passive piety and theology was in star= contrast to the radical social vision which lay at the roots of that tradition He cites @ichael !alAerBs comment, Cthe *alvinist saint is the first of those self4disciplined agents of social and political reconstruction who have appeared so fre%uently in modern history D) !olterstorff set out to rediscover this radicalism, and to explore the reasons why *alvinists today have lost the initiative in social and political reconstruction The roots of this radical *alvinism are found in the thought of .$raham Kuyper, who held that *alvinism is not primarily a theological system $ut a world4view, and to see *alvinism solely or primarily as a theological system is to destroy its inherent genius, that is, the recognition that theology is not an end in itself $ut a servant of the social life of human=ind *alvinism as part of the +rotestant 5eformation re:ected the mediaeval ideal of faith as the contemplation of >od, and instead posited the ideal of faith as o$edience to >od *alvinBs Institutes commences with the discussion of the =nowledge of >od, which he states is the appropriate response to >odBs wor=s, rather than contemplation of >odBs essence That is, gratitude for >odBs gifts and o$edience to his laws, rather than contemplation, is the heart of *hristianity (t is unfortunate that from the context of 32th century society, *alvinism appears to $e legalistic and lac=ing in warmth of piety, as well as concern for the $etterment of human=ind as a whole ( would contend that this is in fact a distortion of *alvinism, and that that legalism arises from failing to see that the core of o$edience to >od in *alvinBs wor=s is gratitude for >odBs $lessings To ma=e o$edience the $e4all and end4all of *alvinist thought is to miss its central thrust, $ut unfortunately that is how *alvinism is often portrayed today $y $oth its supporters and its detractors *alvinBs view was in fact a response to the prevailing contemplative piety of his day, a view in which o$edience and social responsi$ility are o$scured !olterstorff stresses that *alvinism is the repudiation of other4worldly or world4flight *hristianity and the affirmation of world4formative *hristianity ?oth recognise the presence of that which is inferior or evil in human society, the difference $eing that other4 worldly *hristianity turns away from this world to see= something $etter outside of it, while world4formative *hristianity see=s to transform society to $etter it This affirmation of world4formative *hristianity was in fact the recovery of the original thrust
3 )

"icholas !olterstorff Until justice and peace embrace >rand 5apidsE 190) @ichael !alAer he revolution of the saints! a study in the ori"ins of radical politics *am$ridge, @ass E Harvard University +ress, 196,, p vii 3 of 56

© Chris Gousmett

of *hristianity which $rought a$out profound social and political change in the 5oman 7mpire, not $y a process of revolution $ut $y disseminating a new consciousness, a new way of loo=ing at things This socially transformative thrust of *hristianity $ecame su$merged under the other4worldly piety of the @ediaeval period, although it was never entirely a$sent, and it was only gradually and partially recovered in the 5eformation (t is perhaps in the further reforming wor= in the line of .$raham Kuyper that we find the true genius of *alvinism coming to its fullest expression (n these lectures we will $e exploring that socially4transformative vision of Kuyper and his followers, and exploring how it can revitalise our social vision today

© Chris Gousmett

4 of 56

1# Christianity and Politics
From the end of the 10th century through the first half of the 19th century, 7urope was in political turmoil The French 5evolution had overthrown the esta$lished order in France, and the "apoleonic !ars had spread this revolutionary ideology across 7urope The "apoleonic *ode, a legal system rooted in the principles of the French 5evolution, had $een esta$lished in the countries under the control of "apoleonBs 7mpire, thus introducing such principles into the life of those nations This revolutionary ideology had as its $asic principle C"o >od, "o @aster,D a principle rooted in the humanistic philosophy of the 7nlightenment, which held that we should accept no law other than that which we wish to impose upon ourselves, and that the source of political power lay in the will of the people The concept of external authority was discarded This principle $ecame firmly em$edded in the political consciousness of 7urope, $oth through popular dissemination and through the imposition of the "apoleonic 7mpire These ideas retained their currency even after "apoleon was defeated and deposed, and sovereignty returned to the nations he had ruled (n this context of radical politics rooted in an atheistic ideology, there was a revival of evangelical *hristianity, a movement called the 5eveil, which influenced churches in 8witAerland, France, and the "etherlands Fat that time this included ?elgium, which gained its independence in 10)2G This revival was associated with such figures as @erle 1B.u$igne, the famous church historian in 8witAerland, *esar @alan in France, and !illem ?ilderdi:= and (saac da *osta in the "etherlands 9 -ohn T @c"eill compares ?ilderdi:= with Kier=egaard in his contempt for government4controlled *hristianity softened $y indifference (saac da *osta was a converted +ortuguese -ew who wrote poetry attac=ing the li$eralism and ethical decay of the times Under the influence of these men, >uillaume >roen van +rinsterer, who served as *a$inet 8ecretary for the King and as a mem$er of +arliament, was converted from an ethical view of *hristianity to evangelical faith >roen was a prominent historian whose wor= on the history of the "etherlands is still important today His views on the significance of the gospel and of its fortunes through history were shaped $y the thought of @erle 1B.u$igne, the prominent reformation historian whose pastoral ministry had a profound effect on >roen, and through whom the 5eveil was fostered in the "etherlands One of the effects of this 5eveil in the "etherlands which we will $e considering in this $loc= of lectures, was the revival of *alvinistic thought, and in particular its outwor=ing in the political arena This revival of *alvinism was not simply a return to the 16th century, $ut a contemporary application of the insights and principles of *alvinism to the issues of the day, as well as criticism, correction and expansion of various aspects of the

8ee -ohn !esterdorp CThe 1utch revival and its theology D Vox Reformata 3, F19/,G 1/43,

© Chris Gousmett

5 of 56

9 -ohn *alvin $ermons on the Epistle to the Ephesians 7din$urghE ?anner of Truth. and thus it can $e altered. then it $ecomes impossi$le to thin= of the social order as ordained $y >od Fin that formG and thus we $ecome responsi$le for its structure This view comes to expression in the *alvinist concept of Ccalling D !hile the @ediaeval *hristian assumed that his or her calling served the common good if it was devotedly carried out.)41. 19/). as it is a fallen structure in need of reform Once we thin= of social structures as corrupted and in need of reformation. the *alvinist *hristian was called to ensure that this calling served the common good.ugustineBs terms.$raham Kuyper and his spiritual heirs is the focus of these lectures. whether persons. or systems of thought The structure of society is the result of human decision. it is an essential part of piety. which compared the conceptions of *alvin and -an <as=i concerning the nature of the church . and indeed should $e altered. in preference to -an <as=iBs conception of the church as a free fellowship originating in the religious life of *hristians This was the essence of his doctoral thesis. a vision which lies at the roots of *alvinism 7rnst Troeltsch descri$es original *alvinism as a systematic endeavour to mould the life of society as a whole. 6 8ee Henry #waanstra C. although as we will see./ Fon 7phesians 9E36430G 6 of 56 © Chris Gousmett . it cannot $e divorced from the context of the revival of *alvinist thought and the development of a distinctive approach to *hristianity The most distinctive aspect of that approach is the idea that *hristianity is world4transformative The structure of society is not simply a static given or an ar$itrary and ungrounded system. 8ince this tradition incorporates ideas and developments which are not found in the prior *alvinist tradition. it is usually referred to $y the name of neo4*alvinism or alternatively in its 32th century form. without which *hristianity is a truncated and falsified version of the message of *hrist (n a nutshell.thought of *alvin and his spiritual heirs For instance. the formation of human society is the arena of conflict $etween the city of this world and the city of >od "othing is a pure expression of either sin or grace.$raham Kuyper re:ected *alvinBs conception of the church as an institution imposed on human=ind from a$ove. *hristianity is world4formative not world4fleeing This was the vision which shaped and guided Kuyper in his career. . rather. to a =ind of C*hristian 8ocialismD it lays down the principle that the *hurch ought to . $ut these are mixed in varying proportions in all of human society The tas= of the *hristian then is to wor= to see the grace of >od shape our society and overcome the effects of human sin 5edemption therefore is not simply personal $ut comprehensiveE it restores all that has $een distorted and a$used $y human=ind. and to reform it if it did not *alvin said that we must see that a trade or craft must serve the common good. in . it is the conse%uence of the unfolding and development $y human $eings of what >od esta$lished in the $eginning That unfolding and development has $een su$:ect to two contrasting and opposing forcesE human sin and divine grace That is. 5eformational *hristianity The political thought of .$raham KuyperBs conception of the church D Calvin Theological Journal 9 F19/9G 1. $enefiting our neigh$ours 6 This struggle for the reform of society is one facet of *hristian discipleshipE it is not in addition to piety. whether o$edient or diso$edient to >od. p 9. or social structures.

9 who $ro=e out of the universalistic .lthusius also recognised that *hristian faith cannot $e relegated to the supernatural or ecclesiastical arena./416)0G. which is a popular summary of his 5eformed 1ogmatics.van der 8tree= CKuyperBs legacy and multi4culturalismE >ender in his conception of democracy and sphere sovereignty D Pro Rege 3/ F1990G 1E 16439. as in *atholicism / However. a dispute the . nor does it permit this sense of collective responsi$ility to express itself merely in particular institutions and occasional intervention in affairs. and not the order which the church sought to impose on it On this $asis he differentiated politics from theology This was not.lthusius D Philosophia Reformata )9 F19/9G 1/24192 1ismissed as CnatureD $y scholasticism 7 of 56 © Chris Gousmett .lthusius F1. an important concept we will $e examining in detail in another lecture . and it neither isolates the religious element over against the other elements. a secularisation of politics.. ?avinc= was important for his co4operation in the development and propagation of the *alvinist worldview which undergirded the wor= of Kuyper For a good understanding of the theological articulation of that *alvinism.12 including human social life. is a good source and full of stimulating insights relevant even today Johannes Althusius The most important contri$ution to *alvinist political thought $etween the time of the reformation and the rise of neo4*alvinism was perhaps that of the >erman :urist -ohannes .). nota$ly the philosophy of education and the philosophy of science However. his $oo= %ur Reasonable &aith.$raham Kuyper and Herman ?avinc= that *alvinists recovered an interest in issues that extended well $eyond theology ?avinc= will not feature much in these lectures as his wor= on political issues was not as significant as that of Kuyper 0 His non4theological interests developed in other directions. li=e <utheranism. $ut a recognition that >odBs sovereignty extends to every area of society which is to $e guided $y 8cripture The church is not that divine authority. on the *ontinent *alvinism $ecame largely a scholastic theological system (t was only with the revival of *alvinism in the 19th century associated with the wor= of . which he came to realise varied according to the nature of the particular social relationships concerned This was the first modern articulation of the principle of sphere4sovereignty. 19)1.lthusius. however.merica continued something of that vision for a time. eventually ta=ing ?avinc=Bs position rather than KuyperBs For details of . which can receive >odBs grace only through the mediation of the CsupernaturalD church / 0 9 12 7rnst Troeltsch he social teachin" of the Christian churches "ew Hor=E @acmillan. as some interpreters have understood .nti4 5evolutionary +arty did not resolve until 19. p 623 However.ristotelian conception of the state and denied that the individuals and institutions in society form parts of the state (nstead he examined the internal structural principles of society. and does not have a monopoly on the 8criptures or a privileged position in interpreting them This was a re:ection of the scholastic view that human social life is located in the arena of nature. and instead sought to find >odBs order for the creation. where she discusses a dispute $etween Kuyper and ?avinc= over womenBs suffrage.lthusiusB thought see -ames ! 8=illen CThe political theory of -ohannes . see Hillie .$e interested in all sides of life. the *alvinist reformation soon lost sight of its world4formative vision !hile the +uritans in 7ngland and "orth .

nti45evolutionary +arty 11 The principles of this party were first given expression in the wor=s of >roen. political views which Kuyper found a$horrent. a radically ?i$lical insight which was ta=en up and developed $y Kuyper Abraham 'uyper .ll political life then was su$:ect to a higher authority than that found within human society Kuyper’s view of the French Revolution Kuyper also saw the French 5evolution as the outcome of the 1eism of the 10th century. which propagated the idea of political and social autonomy These principles were found in slightly modified form in li$eralism and socialism. not through one particular institution of human life The 8criptures are thus as important for understanding political life. guided only $y his own will and pleasure (n opposition to the principles of the French 5evolution. was $orn in 10)/ and died in 1932 He was a man of prodigious talents and accomplishments. editor of $oth a daily and wee=ly *hristian newspaper. while the conservative reactionary stance towards revolutionary principles was also repudiated $y 11 (t has $een suggested that this was the first modern 7uropean political party 8 of 56 © Chris Gousmett .institution . and even today is of world significance. due to the influence of his thought and writings (n 10/9 Kuyper organised the CIotersB *lu$sD of the anti4revolutionary movement founded $y >roen van +rinsterer into the . Kuyper placed the *alvinist view of the sovereignty of >od as the source of all human authority Kuyper saw the French 5evolution as much more than a political event He saw it as the watershed change in the !estern view of human=ind itself. which has a non4ecclesiastical. and thus he denounced the root from which this fruit grew He re:ected the idea that political sovereignty came from the will of the people. non4theological character. theological professor. who stated the thesis that the principle of revolution was sinful and in opposition to the sovereignty of >od in human society The conse%uences of wor=ing out the principles of revolutionary ideology were shown $y him to $e destructive and in direct opposition to the >ospel. and the mar= he has left on the political and social structure of Holland is immense His influence extended far $eyond Holland in his own time. and the denial of >od and re:ection of all authority other than that which comes from the people Kuyper saw this as the setting aside of >od and the deification of human=ind (t stood for the denial of the wisdom of the past and a $rea= with tradition. as they are for the life of the church and the development of theology Thus . church reformer. university founder.lthusius saw that political life needs to $e set free from the domination of the church to find its own proper sphere of authority and responsi$ility as >od ordained for it. the Cfounding fatherD of neo4*alvinism. author of numerous $oo=s and articles. mem$er of parliament and +rime @inister @any of these offices he filled at the same time.$raham Kuyper. so that everyone was to $e his own lord and master.lthusius recognised that >odBs grace is given directly to human life. who in his lifetime served as pastor. and asserted instead that it came from the sovereignty of >od .

which had as its aim the overthrow of the structures of power to esta$lish a totally new authority. it is entitled to offer resistance until proper government is restored This is not the same as the revolution experienced in France. however. which is a $lessing in view of sin ?ut Kuyper held that there would have $een no need for the state if human=ind had not sinned The formation of the state and the exercise of force to ensure order in society is in his view something unnatural The state is only a help against the forces of human lawlessness and social disintegration Kuyper saw the existence of numerous states as the result of the fragmentation of the unity given in creation The divisions in human society are partially recovered through civil government as a result of >odBs grace 13 1) .@ van der Kroef C. since it serves the purposes of >odE the maintenance of order He opposed the .merica. since the state posits no limits for itself $eyond what it wishes to accept The state therefore encroaches on all other social activity so that all other interests suffer under the domination of the state (t is interesting that Kuyper saw as the prime example of this tendency not France $ut the United 8tates of .' that if a nation is oppressed $y its rightful ruler.$raham Kuyper and the rise of neo4*alvinism in the "etherlands D Church History 1/ F1909G )39 Thomas . no master D The practical conse%uences of the French 5evolution Kuyper saw as the a$solutisation of the state. that the state was CnaturalD and originally essential for human fulfilment. to restrain and punish human wrong4doing This does not mean that Kuyper thought the state is in itself evil or inherently sinful He held that the state was >odBs good gift to human=ind. and the resulting irreligious character it develops 8uch an a$solutisation of the state can only lead to a re:ection of the authority of >od. who held that the state was esta$lished as a result of human sin. where the state has a$sor$ed the sovereignty that is rightfully >odBs 13 Kuyper’s view of the State Kuyper was not opposed to the existence of the state.1) and instead $ased his view on . in order to resist the tyranny of the ruler Kuyper supported *alvinBs view &Institutes of the Christian Religion 9 32 3 3)43.ugustine.Kuyper He saw that nothing less than a reform of political and social life under the sovereignty of >od could counteract the destructive force of revolutionary ideology Kuyper was not. opposed to revolution as such. proper revolution is one which is led $y the responsi$le leaders of a government with the support of the nation as a whole.ristotelian view.%uinas Summa Theologica 1a 96 9 9 of 56 © Chris Gousmett . $ut to the usurpation of power which a revolution can $ring and the ideology which undergirded the revolutionary movements of the 10th and 19th centuries . $ut instead it was a desire to restore the life of the nation which has $een corrupted and a$used $y the tyrant (t is a correction of what has $een damaged rather than a replacement for what has $een a$olished Kuyper was thus opposed to a revolution which re:ects proper authority and esta$lishes in its place the principle of Cno >od.%uinas. which is found in Thomas .

since he ac=nowledges that nothing in the state is not $ased in creation. namely the territory of the state. 10 of 56 © Chris Gousmett . contending with the truly ?i$lical insights which shaped and directed the overall thrust of his thought Kuyper himself lamented the lac= of a truly *hristian philosophical system to ena$le the development of the neo4*alvinist vision in a more authentic manner That lac= was to $e provided in the next generation $y Herman 1ooyeweerd and his co4 wor=ers and disciples 19 (erman )ooye*eerd The most systematic exposition and articulation of the principles espoused $y . we can see in KuyperBs views the legacy of nature4grace dualism To see the tas= of the state as the restraining of human sin. it remained still strongly under the influence of scholasticism. and the nature4 grace dualism evident in his view of the state comes to the fore more than once in his wor=s. founded $y Kuyper.ll this he sees as developing in the course of history This is in conflict with his conception that the state comes a$out as a result of human sin. or alternatively the strengthening of the state to impose yet more order Kuyper held that the state $oth restrains anarchy and provides for positive development of human society as a result of >odBs grace The recognition of this state of affairs has $rought with it an ac=nowledgment of >odBs sovereignty over human life.$raham Kuyper 19 For further details of the history of neo4*alvinism. Kuyper refused to see the source of salvation in human life as either the a$olition of the state as a hindrance to human fulfilment and freedom.msterdam. see ?ernard #ylstra (ntroduction < Kals$ee= Contours of a Christian philosophy! an introduction to (erman )ooye*eerd+s thou"ht TorontoE !edge. where he gained a doctorate. the exercise of authority in the state. and $egan his wor= on *hristian political theory and philosophy while wor=ing as a researcher at the . the ma=ing of laws.. and the am$iguity remains unresolved in his thought Concluding remarks on Kuyper (t must $e said that Kuyper was not wor=ing with a thought4out philosophical system which provided the answers for the many %uestions he confronted in his pu$lic life as politician and reformer (nstead he often had to wor= through the issues as they arose.$raham Kuyper is found in the philosophical system of Herman 1ooyeweerd F1099419//G 1ooyeweerd was a graduate of the law school of the Free University in . 19/. means that there is little which >odBs grace $rings which is not already present in the created nature of humanity. with only a limited a$ility to restore human community.s a result. since the esta$lishment of human authority $rought awareness of a higher power in which that authority is ultimately $ased However. and the profundity of his thought is impressive However. thus leaving little time for careful reflection on the deeper roots and implications of his thought (t must $e ac=nowledged that he accomplished a great deal even with the limitations of resources availa$le to him. civil order exercised under >odBs sovereignty and provided for $y >od in the creation 7ven Kuyper seems to notice this in some places in his wor=s. such as forci$le restraint of wrongdoing To see the state as ordained on account of sin is to o$scure the recognition of the positive tas= of the state as a pu$lic. and so on .

and the views of 1ooyeweerd and Iollenhoven in particular. so we will $e concentrating on 1ooyeweerdBs views in that regard 1ooyeweerd has $een descri$ed as one of the few thin=ers in the 32th century whose comprehensive theory is capa$le of inspiring thought in virtually any field of learning His systematic philosophy first appeared in 19). 8pinoAa not excepted 1ooyeweerdBs wor= is the most extensive *hristian philosophy ever developed. Iollenhoven did not ma=e significant contri$utions in the field of social and political philosophy. han=ering after some sort of restored medieval situation ?ut most li=ely nothing will ever come of this There is not sufficient interest in live philosophical %uestioning within fundamentalism to generate any movement D16 ?arr says 1ooyeweerdBs philosophy is a Csort of JphilosophyB incorporating $i$lical and reformational insights D 1. and others have simply ignored it or dismissed it as of no real value For instance. integrated system of thought which encompasses the whole of reality (t is a genuine philosophy which is overtly and self4consciously attempting to $e *hristian However. and together with 1ooyeweerd articulated this *hristian systematic philosophy IollenhovenBs contri$utions are mainly in the field of the history of philosophy. was professor of philosophy at the Free University. not including numerous articles for underground newspapers Fanonymous for o$vious reasonsG attac=ing the occupying "aAis during the second world war 1ooyeweerd did not produce merely a philosophy of the *hristian religion.(nstitute F193341936G. -ames ?arr descri$es 1ooyeweerdBs philosophy as an Caversion to modern theology and modern $i$lical studies. and refines and develops the achievements of Kuyper His $rother4in4 law. a mem$er of the 1utch 5oyal 8ociety of . 1ir= Iollenhoven. and held many other important posts in 1utch intellectual society He was widely respected as a thin=er and philosopher. for which he developed a *hristian methodology that ena$les analysis of the deepest roots and influences on the thin=ers of !estern civilisation 1. the thin=4tan= esta$lished $y the . $ut rather an encyclopaedic. or a prolegomena to a theological system.) as A . 19//.. he was professor of law at the Free University 1ooyeweerd was president of the 8ociety of the +hilosophy of <aw.e* Criti-ue of heoretical hou"ht The main themes of his wor= are summariAed in the $oo= Contours of a Christian Philosophy $y Kals$ee= 1ooyeweerd also wrote numerous other $oo=s and articles totalling over 322. and was descri$ed $y someone not a follower as the greatest philosopher produced $y Holland. p 3/6 11 of 56 © Chris Gousmett . the possi$ility of a distinctly *hristian philosophy is re:ected $y many *hristians.nti45evolutionary +arty to formulate its policies and research its principles From 1936 to 196. 16 For an overview of the history of the historiography of philosophy. and is of great significance for the development of the *hristian scholarly enterprise His philosophy is rooted in the revival of *alvinism shaped $y Kuyper. such as 7mil ?runner and Karl ?arth. as well as many *hristians wor=ing in the field of philosophy The attempt $y 1ooyeweerd to formulate such a philosophy has generally $een dismissed a priori $y such thin=ers. see Hen= van der <aan CThe historiography of philosophy D Vox Reformata 39 F19//G 14)1 -ames ?arr &undamentalism <ondonE 8*@. and was revised and pu$lished in an 7nglish translation in 19. or a reflection on a part of the field of philosophy.rts and <etters.

in which theology. whose sovereign authority ought everywhere to $e ac=nowledged. *ornelius van Til and Francis 8haeffer. Korea. and :ustify herself to every particular © Chris Gousmett 12 of 56 . $ut in spite of ?arrBs pessimism as to its li=ely influence. and is %uite happy to accept the latter without demanding that it $e complete and infalli$le 8imilarly . political theory. that is. the su$:ect matter for which he sees as identical with that of systematic theology. when he says that Cthere is no such thing as philosophy today it is always the philosophy of something else D He thus argues for a philosophy of the *hristian religion. to mention $ut a few. $ut against a *hristian systematic philosophy ?rown recommends eclectic use of ideas from whatever philosophies seem useful He sees a danger in systematic philosophy as a discipline that he does not see in systematic theology. *olin ?rown dismisses 1ooyeweerd in a footnote.merica.D the only thin=ers he examines are Karl ?arth.frica. in his section C+hilosophy and 5eformed Theology. that C*hristian philosophyD is simply a philosophy which is considered compati$le with *hristianity. alone thought to $e regulated $y divine revelation. where 1ooyeweerdBs philosophy is taught and used as an academic tool Colin Brown’s dismissal of ooyeweerd 8imilarly. and there can $e a num$er of these The two reasons for re!ection of a Christian philosophy The reason why the idea of a *hristian philosophy is re:ected is to $e found in two factors The first is the influence of nature4grace dualism. -apan. "orth . there are now tertiary institutions in 7urope. in his $oo= entitled Philosophy and the Christian &aith That a $oo= with such a title can ignore one of the most significant *hristian philosophers of the twentieth century demonstrates a $lin=eredness hard to comprehend (ndeed. since such a human endeavour would necessarily $e incomplete and falli$le He also argues against the idea of a systematic philosophy. to o$lige her on every occasion to ma=e apologies for her conclusions. is given a status a$ove other disciplines in the area of grace. aesthetics. and every other discipline are relegated to the field of nature to $e governed $y the light of human reason 8ince there is no direct control over philosophy $y divine revelation. (ndonesia and . without even giving an evaluation of his wor=. a conse%uence of his approach to philosophy which is rooted not in the gospel of *hrist $ut in the philosophy of linguistic analysis ?rown asserts that we cannot hope to esta$lish a *hristian philosophy. three theologians and apologists ?rown ignores the *hristian philosophers in the 5eformed tradition ?rown goes on to rail against the idea of a *hristian philosophy as such. as have many others. while philosophy.rthur Holmes has argued. and argues solely for a philosophy of the *hristian religion.That 1ooyeweerd is not a fundamentalist is one reason why his wor= has not received a wide hearing in that section of *hristianity.ustralia. . the only limits on philosophy have $een the re%uirement not to undermine or criticise the conclusions of theology This produced the attac= $y Hume on theology in which he saidE JTis certainly a =ind of indignity to philosophy.

art and science. !ittgenstein. violated their covenantal relationship with their *reator. seen $y Hume as independence from divine revelation. have $een ta=en up $y *hristians and used as the theoretical underpinnings for $oth theology and other disciplines The interest in philosophy has also usually $een less for its own sa=e than for its use in theology The idea of theology as the %ueen of the sciences. to mention $ut a few. and philosophy as its handmaiden.2 Hume goes on to argue that his philosophy does not contradict religion. who upholds and sustains that creation constantly. p 3. @arx. that they are $ound in a covenantal relationship with >od. 7dited $y < . Kant. what is su$:ect to that structure D . that is. 8el$ny4?igge OxfordE *larendon +ress. is. $ut provides a service to these through systematic reflection and analysis 5evelation is given $y >od to human=ind. Hegel. governing it $y his word of law and calling it to fulfil its purpose The agents >od created to care for this earth and to develop it to reach its potential.ristotle. human $eings. logically.t various times the wor=s of +lato. . and not in the pagan and humanistic concepts of the origin and meaning which underlie most of !estern philosophy 1ooyeweerd draws on the insights of Kuyper to demonstrate that the most fundamental characteristic of human $eings is that they are religious. a covenant which they fre%uently violate To decide whether or not a philosophical system can $e *hristian re%uires first of all an understanding of what philosophy is. 1escartes. however. *hristian philosophy therefore starts with the conviction that creation is called into $eing $y the <iving >od. how it is distinguished from other academic disciplines +hilosophy is defined as Cdiscerning the structure of creation and descri$ing systematically. that is. however. and thus carry out this tas= in re$ellion and diso$edience 1/ 10 1avid Hume A treatise of human nature ?oo= 1. which may $e offended at her This puts one in mind of a =ing arraigned for high4treason against his su$:ects 1/ The claim to independence from theology. have. $ut $oth function independently in their own fields Theology should $e seen as systematic reflection on revelation. 1ooyeweerd argues that all philosophy is rooted in a religious commitment. 8chelling. and thus is secondary to and dependent on revelation Theology does not mediate revelation for other areas of human activity. not to theologians or church officials to transmit to the rest of humanity $y way of theology 13 of 56 © Chris Gousmett . contri$uted to the fact that philosophy has not flowered in its own right within the *hristian community That the re:ection of a distinctly *hristian philosophy owes more to the influence of such non4*hristian systems of thought than to the actual possi$ility or otherwise of such an endeavour is usually not realised ooyeweerd " all philosophy is rooted in religious commitment (n challenging this state of affairs. that origin and meaning is found in the *reator >od. that is. a conse%uence of the confusion of theology and revelation $y *hristians for many centuries 10 The other factor preventing the development of an intrinsically *hristian philosophy is the fact that throughout history *hristians have tried to form a synthesis $etween the prevailing philosophical systems of the day and a theological system . an acceptance of something outside of ourselves which provides the origin and meaning of reality For the *hristian. Oc=ham. 8ection . +art 9. 19/0. the Father of our <ord -esus *hrist. which is commenda$le.

rooted as it is in the atheism and rationalism of the 7nlightenment. is in conflict not with *hristian philosophy $ut with *hristian faith (t is a rival and antagonistic faith to which humanistic philosophy is su$:ect. namely that the only court to which thought can $e held accounta$le is the autonomous human reason The cardinal difference $etween such philosophy and *hristian philosophy is that *hrist has set us free from $ondage to sin to allow us in freedom to examine our own $eliefs (t is the dar=ness that enshrouds the human heart that precludes the willingness to examine the dogma of the autonomous human reason. unfettered $y any external authority. and the reflections of the dar=ened human heart which stands in alienation from >od © Chris Gousmett 14 of 56 . wor=ing out the principles of the *hristian faith in the field of philosophical thought. undogmatically and openly to challenge its own dogma. free to challenge any dogma it chooses The dogma of the autonomous human reason is the application in the intellectual realm of the ideology of Cno >od. a dar=ness which is dispelled $y the light of *hrist. an architectonic analysis of the whole of reality. >od has sent -esus *hrist to restore the creation to its former wholeness. which perspective undergirds a *hristian philosophy. the only $asis on which *hristian philosophising can $e conducted From this ( hope we can grasp something of the radical difference $etween the foundations of *hristian philosophy.D and the refusal to accept any laws save those which it imposed upon itself The religious underpinning of this position.However. on which our political theory will $e $ased. no master. and is as su$:ect to the dictates of that faith as *hristian philosophy is to divine revelation This can $e seen for instance in the refusal of such philosophy to freely. in order to arrive at an understanding of the origin and meaning of the creation # Christian philosophy That a *hristian philosophy is su$:ect to the dictates of divine revelation has $een seen as proof that it is not an independent search for truth $ut is $eholden to external authority ?ut this is not the product of careful analysis as to the nature of philosophyK rather it is the viewpoint of philosophical systems which ta=e their starting point not in divine revelation and covenantal relationship with >od. that is. and stands in star= contrast to the pagan >ree= or humanistic concept of philosophy as to the nature of that origin and meaning (t has the same character as non4*hristian philosophy. and to renew the tas= of developing it towards its goal This then is the origin and meaning of the creation. $ut in the autonomous human reason.

since they are rooted in a faith4commitment That faith4commitment is seen in the way in which we answer four $asic %uestionsE 1G 3G )G 9G !hat is the nature. and the origin and meaning of the world including the origin and nature of evil. and it provides the essential direction for those who hold that worldview !ithout it. and it is in the Kuyperian tradition that the concept of a *hristian world4view has $een most extensively. the pagan >ree= world4view *reation4fall4redemption4consummation. their life is meaningless and devoid of direction Thus every$ody has a worldview. worldview is defined for our purposes as a non4theoretical. the secularisation of the mediaeval world4view in the 7nlightenment The variations within these categories are of less importance at the moment than grasping the main lines of development in !estern culture The characteristic structures of the world4views of non4!estern culture have $een much less studied and it would $e of interest to examine them.eo/Calvinist articulation of a Christian 0orld/vie* Introduction The "eo4*alvinist approach to politics cannot $e understood without some consideration of the *hristian world4view which undergirds it (ndeed.. the ?i$lical world4view. intensively and persistently studied . "ature4grace. $ut is shared with a community which holds to that worldview as the $asis for its culture *ultural life $oth reflects and strengthens the worldview which guides it !orldviews are thus also religious. the mediaeval synthesis of the >ree= and ?i$lical world4views.# he . which is not purely individual in character. everyday account of how the world is (t involves some concept of the nature of the divine. tas= and purpose of human $eingsL !hat is the nature of the world ( live inL !hat is the $asic o$stacle that prevents fulfilmentL Fwhat is evilLG How is it possi$le to overcome this o$stacleL Fwhat is means of salvationLG OrE !ho am (L !here am (L !hatBs wrongL !hatBs the remedyL There are four $asic categories of world4view in !estern thoughtE 1 3 ) 9 Form4matter. "ature4freedom. $ut they need not concern us now 8uffice it to say that the © Chris Gousmett 15 of 56 . it cannot $e understood without grasping the significance and centrally4directing function which the concept of a world4 view itself holds in that system of thought (t would not $e stretching the point to say that the interest in the issue of worldviews amongst *hristians today is directly tracea$le to the influence of Kuyper and his followers.

and the community of all >odBs creation is $ro=en The ?i$lical message concerning $oth >od and his creation is o$scured. religion is the $asic dynamic of human life. that is. creation and 8cripture stands over against all myth The idols of un$elievers originate in fastening on one or more aspects of creation and elevating that to the status of divinity. while myths are formulated $y the apostate imagination to explain and :ustify that idolatry. esta$lished $y >od with human=ind at creation. those who continue to re:ect >od and his offer of salvation in *hrist are su$:ect to the curses of the covenant Human life then reflects the condition of either $lessing or curse that moulds our lives in =eeping with our response to >od Those who have re:ected >od and his divine revelation cannot there$y change their $asic nature. that covenant has had to $ecome a covenant of redemption in addition to a covenant of grace towards his creation !e see a periodic renewal of that covenant at strategic points in redemptive history. p 19 16 of 56 © Chris Gousmett . ( mean an historical relationship. $ut the covenant remains in force ?y a covenant. 1991. on which >od $uilds throughout human history ?ecause of sin. while his revelation in *hrist. religion is our covenantal relationship with >od that encompasses all that we are as human $eings !e have $ro=en that relationship. as each is seen to have characteristics which are properly ascri$ed to the other ii +art of the divine is seen in the cosmos 19 32 8ee Hen= van der <aan CThe meaning of religion D Vox Reformata )3 F19/9G 1)4)3 8ee 5oy *louser he myth of reli"ious neutrality "otre 1ameE University of "otre 1ame +ress. we see it is the $elief in anything with the status of the Cdivine. thus claiming to act as divine revelation 5eturning now to the nature of religion. culminating in the new and final covenantal relationship esta$lished in -esus *hrist >od has re4esta$lished relationships with us $y means of -esus *hrist Those who repent and turn in faith to >od through *hrist are restored into covenantal $lessing. while the su$stitute revelation is myth >od thus stands over against all false gods. their relationships with other creatures are distorted. while those of non4!estern culture seem to $e almost exclusively monistic One prominent example of a monistic !estern worldview is found in 8pinoAa Reli"ion The nature of religion as understood in neo4*alvinism is crucial for the whole structure of its thought 19 5eligion cannot $e reduced to merely its cultic expression or personal piety 5ather.D which is anything that is not dependent on anything else 32 The way in which the divine and non4divine are divided up can $e characterised $y four different schemes i +art of the cosmos is seen as divine F+olytheismG The characteristics of the divine are extended into the cosmos ?y seeing some creatures as divine. to $e religious $eings. that is. and so they see= out a su$stitute god to worship and a su$stitute revelation $y which to direct their lives This su$stitute god is idolatry.world4views of !estern culture are predominantly dualistic Fearliest >ree=s monisticG.

or modern views which hold that gods are merely the product of creaturely activity The creation is ascri$ed actions and powers properly the wor= of >od. rather than $eing put under human stewardship !olterstorff suggests that one distinction $etween <i$eration theology and neo4 *alvinism is that the former focuses on sin as the root cause of misery in society. that of faith versus idolatry.nother way of putting it is that li$eration theology deals with the phenomenon of in:ustice as it is © Chris Gousmett 17 of 56 . tendency of such a worldview is to limit the powers of the divine $y arraying powerful creatures against the divine The ?a$ylonian myths. although from different angles and with ultimately much the same conclusion . while neo4*alvinism uses the structures which are esta$lished under the direction of that sinful nature. as the cosmos creates the divine The divine comes into $eing either as a result of cosmic forces. and what we consider cosmos is in fact divine (f the cosmos and the divine are co4extensive. are an example of this =ind of worldview iii . and what is considered divine arises out of the cosmos and does not transcend the cosmos. or through human activity 7xamples are the pagan views in which the gods arise out of the earth. while idolatry is of course undou$tedly sin The difference is more in terms of the method of analysis used to come to grips with the pro$lemE li$eration theology uses the sinful nature which manifests itself in in:ustice. defined $y ?o$ >oudAwaard as an ideology which treats something of some value as if it were of ultimate value (t is an example of one aspect of creation $eing treated as divine. that which is divine is included in the cosmos.ll of the divine is seen in the cosmos Fpan4cosmismG The cosmos is primary. while the neo4*alvinist focuses on idolatry as the root cause This is.(n this worldview. which also manifest themselves in in:ustice ?oth are attac=ing the same end4pro$lem. $ut not exhausting the divine The way in which the cosmos and the divine are seen to $e related thus shapes our conception of reality (t is essential then to correctly understand the distinction $etween the *reator and the creationE any confusion leads to pagan misconceptions and this necessarily results in mythologising The neo4*alvinist worldview sees human society as governed $y two dynamics. and that of differentiation The domination of economic considerations in !estern life is idolatry. since sin can $e analysed in terms of idolatrous commitments. however. this is =nown as pantheismE the view that everything is divine The modification of this view called panentheism sees the cosmos as divine. as !olterstorff admits not an exclusive characterisation. and >od is seen as dependent on creatures iv . in which the gods had to struggle against powerful creatures in order to $e free to rule. through ascri$ing to the creation that which is proper to >od .ll of the cosmos is seen as divine FpantheismG Only the divine exists. and thus placed a$ove human control.

he $rought into $eing concrete creatures which are not reduci$le to simpler structures Thus any attempt to $rea= down the creation further. it is not a principle resisting >od The creation was not completed or developed initially. needs to $e carefully examined !hat we actually find in that passage is that the original creation of the heavens and the earth recounted in >enesis 1E1 is waiting further development and ordering from the hand of >od (t is not a disordered chaos. leads only to confusion and error >od did not create $y giving form to matter. it cannot serve as the home of living things (t needs to $e further developed The creation was only gradually $rought into $eing as a world full of diversity and complexity ?ut at every point we see only order. so that these can somehow $e separatedK he called specific. $ut there is no way we can $ring into $eing anything not already present as potential in the creation !hen >od created at the $eginning. although he does not initially have to © Chris Gousmett 18 of 56 . the creatures of >od su$:ect to their creator (t was the world over which the Holy 8pirit was attentive To suggest that the original creation of the heavens and the earth left the earth in a state of chaos which needed to $e overcome introduces a dualism into >od himselfE he is $oth a >od of order and a >od of chaos 8uch a conception is unwarranted mythologising speculation and contrary to the witness of 8cripture >od only $rings order into $eing. as for instance in distinguishing form and matter. $ut was $arren and desolate. and these exist as such and not as com$inations of something other than what they are as creatures The neo4*alvinist view of creation insists that what >od has $rought into $eing is constantly su$:ected to his ordering and sustaining word That order existed from the first moment in which creatures came into $eing There was no pre4existent or su$se%uent state of chaos or a$sence of order The traditional view of >enesis 1 has $een that >od has $rought order out of a chaotic disorder This view actually owes more to pagan >ree= speculations a$out cosmogony than to the witness of 8cripture There we find confirmed on every hand that the world is ordered $y >od The suggestion that in >enesis 1E3 we can read of a chaos principle which resists >odBs creation. real concrete creatures into $eing. that is.experienced $y the oppressed. in terms of the purpose of >enesis 1. the idea that salvation can $e restricted in a dualistic way to a purely CspiritualD level ?oth argue for an integral li$eration of the whole person through the gospel of -esus *hrist Creation *reation is central to the neo4*alvinist or reformational world4view (t refers to the fact that everything that exists was $rought into $eing $y the *reator at the $eginning There is nothing that exists that was not esta$lished $y >od Human formative activity can mould and uncover what is already there. and $ring new expressions of the creation into $eing. along with <i$eration theology. or that it refers simply to disorder waiting to $e ordered. while neo4*alvinism deals with the structural in:ustice which produces the oppression "eo4*alvinism also re:ects.

to prepare a home for living things The +atristic writers interpreted >enesis 1 in terms of the giving of form to unformed matter (n that context. $ut $y calling into $eing complete creatures >od created the animals as animals. pp /9490 >utierreA A heolo"y of 1iberation. namely. as if there were two =inds of grace in >odBs relationship with human $eings 5ather this distinction is to $e understood in terms of the history of >odBs redemptive acts which follow his creative acts and which restore that creation again 31 33 3) For a detailed discussion of this theme see > * ?er=ouwer $in >rand 5apidsE 7erdmans. the paradigmatic act of redemption They purportedly speculated that the >od who had rescued them and there$y defeated the gods of the 7gyptians must have $een also the >od who created the world and had supreme authority over it 8ince redemption is primary in this approach.$ring a finished product into $eing ?ut an unfinished product is not a chaosE it is merely incomplete. 19/3. as >od does not create $y imposing form upon matter. creation is also seen as an act of redemption 33 The pro$lem with this view. grace that originates with and sustains >odBs creative actsE it does not originate in >odBs redemptive acts This distinction is not to $e understood ontologically. as well as in <i$eration Theology.s we shall see a little later.ssenMKampenE 5oyal Ian>orcumM. and this wor= is descri$ed in the rest of >enesis 1 until the climax is reached in 3E1 The earth then cannot have $een a chaos initially or at any other stage 31 The tohu wa$%ohu which is mentioned is not chaos and disorder. the tohu wa$%ohu of >enesis 1E3 was seen as referring to such matter ?ut there is no hint of such a concept in >enesis. extrapolated $ac=wards $y the people of (srael after their exodus from 7gypt. not $y imposing animal forms on matter The understanding of creation in <i$eration Theology is shaped $y an interpretation of 8cripture which gives priority to redemption *reation is then seen as an act of redemption. 1906 19 of 56 © Chris Gousmett .H Ko=. 19/1. the neo4*alvinist view includes the doctrine of common grace. which is found in the thought of Karl ?arth and many other theologians. a view that there$y forces grace into the mould of redemption .0 8ee 8 U #uidema CThe structure of Karl ?arthBs doctrine of creation D (nE Communication and Confrontation! A philosophical appraisal and criti-ue of modern society and contemporary thou"ht . is that it is essentially meaningless (f creation is an act of redemption. $ut what evil was there prior to creation. (nstitute for *hristian 8tudies. a dualistic concept at odds with 8cripture. it is simply a description of the state of the worldE empty and uninha$ita$le That was not a negative ascription. when only >od existedL This pro$lem can $e seen in the rather $iAarre speculations of Karl ?arth concerning the so4called CnothingnessD which >od negated $y creating this world 3) This originates in his insistence in seeing every act of >od within the covenant of grace in -esus *hrist. re%uiring further wor=. then what is it that creation redeems fromL The very act of creation in that case $ecomes a deliverance from some evil. p 1. that is. e&cept in relation to the total purpose of 'od. pp )294 )30 -effrey 1udia= ?arthBs doctrine of nothingnessE creational and theological reflections Unpu$lished 8eminar +aper.

rather. 39 8ee 1ouglas Hall Ima"in" God! )ominion as ste*ardship 20 of 56 © Chris Gousmett . and most accounts do in one form or another. $ut has $een su$:ect to $ro=enness and distortion $ecause of human sin That original perfection of the creation is rooted in the order >od esta$lished for it. caused $y the $rea=ing of the covenant relationship with >od. they can form their lives and their surroundings freely in response to >odBs call to $e imagers This cultural mandate is the o$ligation to set loose the dynamics of history rather than $e $ound $y tradition This tas= we call culture.he cultural mandate (nsepara$le from the neo4*alvinist view of creation is the cultural mandate of >enesis 1E36430 That cultural mandate involves the freedom of human=ind to shape and mould the world we live in through control over it That control is not unfettered. since it is to $e carried out in response to >odBs mandateE a call to stewardship and development. exploring and discovering what lies hidden within it. it is not an activity we do or a role that we fill.ugustinian ideal of the conflict $etween the *ity of this world and the *ity of >od. neither unhindered development nor static preservation 39 That cultural mandate however has come under the $ondage of sin as a result of the fall. introduced into human society the conflict $etween sin and grace This is given concrete expression in the . not to $ring into $eing something which does not already exist The creation started in perfection. since in that view creation is of merely salvific significance. although that which is su$:ect to the order can re$el and $ring a$out distortion and fracture !olterstorff sees the concept of the cultural mandate as one area in which neo4*alvinism is superior to <i$eration Theology. and is of no intrinsic importance in itself he &all The fall into sin. it is who we areE >odBs stewardly developers This is perhaps the closest we can get to defining the image of >odE it is our createdness as >odBs representatives in the creation. and the right we possess to do this originates in >odBs mandate to us The emphasis in KuyperBs thought concerning creation is that the human tas= is to discover and develop what is already present in the creation. called to care for and unfold it to the glory of >od. and so is carried out in violation of and in re$ellion against the !ord of >od for human=ind That mandate cannot $e ignored since it is constitutive of human $eingE we are stewards and developers of the creation. and $ringing that hiddenness to light in all the multivarious ways which humans can find to do soE that is. and in the reformational world4view in the concept of antithesis The essence of the antithesis is the conviction that in society we see a conflict $etween o$edient covenantal and diso$edient idolatrous allegiances contending for the opportunity to shape and direct human life This conflict explains one fundamental dynamic within human societyE it is not incidental to the social order $ut lies at the very root of our social order "o explanation of the way the world is can $e satisfactory without ta=ing account of this antithesis. an order which cannot $e done away with.

to a greater or lesser extent. some forms of feminism.dam and 7ve had sinned or not The pro$lem for this view is to explain why there is a need to ensure :ustice $etween people who have not sinned This is usually tac=led $y saying that :ustice is not primarily focused on redressing wrongs. as would $e the case in the other view (nstead. and in all human societies is restricted in some form or other. either those of another race or all or most other races. for instance $y destruction of the CevilD $y nuclear war 8imilarly. the localisation of evil Cover there D ?y so doing.D and so the antithesis is esta$lished $etween CthemD and Cus. racism. a tas= re%uired whether . false ideologies and false religion One aspect of political thought which arises in connection with the discussion of creation and fall is the origin of the state 1id it come into $eing $ecause of the fall.D that is. the pro$lem arises of a coherent order of creation (f the state was only ordained su$se%uent to the fall.D and classism. as in @arxismK locating evil in the rich and righteousness in the poorK this tendency we could call Csocial dualism D (nstead of seeing the antithesis $etween groups of people or parts of the creation. those of another gender. our cultural formative power. those of another religious persuasion. the state would not have come into existence This is one root of the idea that politics is dirty and to $e avoided $y the *hristian However.D and :ustification is there$y given to plans to eliminate the evil. which sees it solely the conse%uence of sin Had . those of another sexual persuasion. and other CismsD locate the evil in a group of human $eings.merica as Cthe >reat 8atan.dam and 7ve not sinned. the state is to ensure :ustice $etween the mem$ers of society and their institutions. then how does it cohere with the rest of society ordained in the creationL ?ut if the state was ordained along with the rest of society in the creation. the 8criptures place it within each human heartE all of us have a divided nature with a conflict $etween sin and grace which runs through every part of our lives The ways in which we shape and direct our human society. or was it ordained $y >od prior to the fallL There have $een many de$ates a$out this %uestion. $ut $etween creatures themselves This ontologising or localising of evil is seen in 5eaganBs famous description of the U885 as the Cevil empire. $ut ensuring rights The state would therefore exist for that purpose whether or not human=ind had fallen in sin !e will deal with this issue further in the fourth chapter © Chris Gousmett 21 of 56 . are under the influence of two opposing forcesE $elieving response to the grace of >od and the re$ellion of the human heart which leads to apostasy and idolatry 8ome human culture therefore is destructive and oppressive. vested interest. with the tendency $eing towards an anti4state approach. that is.although most misconstrue it $ecause of their $asic idolatrous commitments to humanly generated myth The most common approach in idolatrous religion is to see the antithesis not $etween >odBs covenantal grace and human sin. then its central tas= cannot $e the restraining of sin. e g the (ranian characterisation of . $y the power of tradition. those of another economicMsocial class. evil is removed from Cover here.

and the concept of a cosmic redemption is almost un=nown to most theologians Iery few $oo=s have ever $een written on this su$:ect The non4human creation is rarely seen as included in the redemptive wor= of *hrist. the *alvinist views the $est of these options as the right thing to do and therefore $rings a clear conscience rather than a guilty conscience The *alvinist does not demand perfection. "or thorns infest the groundE He comes to ma=e his $lessings flow Far as the curse is found The redemptive wor= of *hrist is not simply personal in nature $ut cosmicE the whole of the created order is redeemed in *hrist and restored once again to o$edient relationship to >od The non4human creation suffers under the domination of its diso$edient stewards.Redemption ?ecause the purposes of >od for the creation involve its consummation and fulfilment in the glory of >od. only o$edience to the $est of our a$ility aided $y the grace of >od !olterstorff mentions that one of the typical *alvinist failings is triumphalism. then the effects of human covenant4$rea=ing must $e dealt with wherever they are found . 1902 22 of 56 © Chris Gousmett .frican *alvinists present this in its purest form 3. for which we must see= forgiveness for doing the unavoida$le evil. no matter where that disruption and sin is found The wor= of redemption therefore extends as far as the effects of sinE no sin lies outside of the possi$ility of redemption. and no effect of sin cannot $e reversed in *hristBs wor= of redemption 5eform is one of the practical outwor=ings of the redemption of *hrist renewing human life !hile we cannot always accomplish the needed social reform which the !ord of >od demands of us. reformational perspective on the other hand sees salvation as an act of the creator >od restoring that creation and defeating the disruption that afflicts it. which is the $elief that the needed reformation has already occurred. and through their redemption the non4human creation is set free once again to pursue its proper tas= This has o$vious implications for environmental issues 3. in spite of clear witness to the contrary in 8cripture . and all we need to do is ensure its survival in society in its present form !olterstorff says that 8outh . that which we can manage to achieve is commended $y >od !olterstorff characterises the distinction $etween *alvinist and <utheran views in this regard !hile the <utheran sees the $est option of the variety of choices presented to us in this world as the lesser of two evils. For details of the reformational approach to environmental issues see <oren !il=enson Earth2eepin"! Christian ste*ardship of natural resources >rand 5apidsE 7erdmans.s the hymn $y (saac !atts puts it F-oy to the !orldG. "o more let sin and sorrow grow. @ost !estern theologies see redemption in purely personal terms.

ll that >od has made. will $e present .Eschaton The consummation of the purposes of >od for the creation is the manifestation of the glory of >od throughout all that he has created The goal of the redemptive wor= of *hrist is the new heavens and the new earth. 19/3. 199. will $e revealed there in its true splendour Then we will see the full manifestation of the =ingdom of >od. and all that human $eings have made of it to glorify >od. pp 3114 3/ 30 For an excellent exposition of this theme seeE 1avid <awrence (eaven! it3s not the end of the *orld4 <ondonE 8cripture Union. 1963 23 of 56 © Chris Gousmett . and in anticipation of the coming realisation !hat we now have of the reality of the =ingdom of >od is in a sense the future reaching $ac= into the present 30 36 8ee > * ?er=ouwer 3)9 he Return of Christ >rand 5apidsE 7erdmans. that is. in terms of the new earth promised in 5evelation and (saiah. the entire creation order. and the resurrection of all $elieving human=ind to live for eternity in >odBs new earth 36 The dualistic tradition of *hristianity postulates an eternal heaven which is other than and separate from this earthly life The +latonic roots of this concept are undisputed. which holds to an earthly4oriented eschaton. which we now see only in part. $ut the images and doctrine $ased on that +latonism remain entrenched in the *hristian consciousness The anti4creational and individualistic approach inherent in that view has $een specifically repudiated $y the neo4 *alvinist tradition. and which focuses on the resurrection from the dead and not the life of the immortal soul in an ethereal heaven The dualistic anthropology which underlies our concept of heaven and eternity needs to $e scrupulously rooted out and discarded The 8criptures never spea= of human $eings going to spend eternity in heaven with >odE they spea= instead of >od descending from heaven to spend eternity on the new earth with resurrected and redeemed humanity 3/ On the new earth all that has $een redeemed. For a detailed discussion of the =ingdom of >od see Herman 5idder$os he Comin" of the 'in"dom +res$yterian and 5eformed pu$lishing *ompany.

characterised $y a we$ of interlacing relationships so that together they all form a harmonious order of creation The unity of creation is not found in the common su$stance from which things are made. the mainstream reformers including *alvin continued to support the *onstantinian model. that comes to expression in the doctrine of sphere sovereignty That theory stands in contrast to the false alternatives of collectivism and individualism presented to us $y non4 *hristian perspectives on society. which sets out to develop a correct understanding of those institutions and their tas=s 'uyper in opposition to the Constantinian model KuyperBs vision of society differed drastically from that of -ohn *alvin on a very significant pointE Kuyper re:ected the *onstantinian ideal of society in which the mem$ership of the church and mem$ership of civil society was identical !hile the . which generate or perpetuate in:ustice and misery (n what way are these pro$lems the result of an inade%uate understanding of the structure and tas= of the various institutions in societyL That is the issue which confronts us in the doctrine of sphere sovereignty. as in monist theories. nor do we find creatures emerging from the one source in a monistic manner.5# $phere soverei"nty as a theory of society The false alternatives of dualism and monism that we loo=ed at in the last chapter are in star= contrast to the ?i$lical doctrine of creation There we do not find >od forming creatures from a com$ination of form and matter in a dualistic manner. that$aptists re:ected this identification. as in dualist theories. nor in the common origin they share. $ut his failure to $rea= out of the @ediaeval synthesis led to the decline in accepta$ility of the 5eformation and increased the appeal of the secular state where no one theology is imposed under penalty. an analysis of its structure and dynamics Our institutions often do things they should not There are large4scale social practices often approved of $y society as a whole. and thus *alvin was implicated in the $urning of 8ervetus for heresy The continuation of this view of society and the resulting religious wars that followed the reformation. © Chris Gousmett 24 of 56 . which were examined in the article $y 8py=man on pluralism 39 (ndispensi$le to a world4formative *hristianity is the idea of an architechtonic vision and criti%ue of society. $ut in $eing su$:ect to the one law4order esta$lished $y >od for the creation That law4order provides the conditions for the existence of all >odBs creatures. and ensures their functioning according to the intention of >od for them (n terms of social life. was in fact in radical conflict with the $asic thrust of *alvinBs own thought. save ultimately the theology of secularism itself 39 >ordon 8py=man C+luralismE our last $est hopeLD Christian Scholars Review 12 F1902G 99411. as in evolutionary theory 5ather. we find a diversity of specific creatures formed as such $y >od.

as well as $ased on an entirely fictitious conception of society Kuyper re:ected the idea that we should $ow down to any human $eing $y right since they are no different to us >od alone is sovereign Kuyper thus re:ects the idea of the right of the ma:ority to rule. since only in that way can :ustice $e done to the needs of all He re:ected ma:ority rule as the tyranny of num$ers Kuyper stressed that the idea of freedom can reach its fulfilment only with a correct view of society. violating the rights of minorities Kuyper held that the state can only prosper where it gives due recognition to the differences $etween various minorities in the nation He accuses the modern state of destroying the rightful diversity and cultural differences of the various cultural groups He claims that Cuniformity is the curse of modern life D)1 )ifferentiation and disclosure of society 1ooyeweerd sees differentiation as the norm for human history *ultural activity and therefore human history should move in the direction of increasing differentiation. as in feudalism !e can see this in the 8criptures in the history of (srael. since sovereignty comes from >od. that is. (saac and )2 . with the protection of the sovereignty of the various spheres.$raham Kuyper 1ectures on Calvinism >rand 5apidsE !illiam ? 7erdmans. not from any num$er of people no matter how great . Kuyper fought long and hard for proportional representation. since that right immediately $ecomes the rule of the strongest )2 The authority to rule is instead delegated from >od 8imilarly Kuyper re:ects the idea of a Csocial contractD made in earlier ages which now $inds us into a political order This is again the right of the strongest to enforce a contract in which we had no free part in ma=ing. since otherwise there is no chec= on the power of the ma:ority Thus he re:ects the idea of popular sovereignty. 19)1.s a result. the disclosure of that which >od has hidden within the creation . allowing the various spheres of society to come into their own $y disclosing their own inner nature (n an undifferentiated culture the various spheres of society are still a$sor$ed within the tri$al or state structure.Rule of the stron"est Kuyper asserted that no$ody has the intrinsic right to rule over others. which moved from $eing a tri$al people under the authority of the head of the clan F.ny cultural activity which does not increasingly disclose this differentiation is regressive and diso$edient to >odBs command 1ooyeweerd saw this exemplified in "aAi >ermany where the attempt was made to reverse the historic disclosure of society and to revert to a tri$al ideology of C$lood and soilD under the inspiration of romantic nationalism 1ifferentiation of society results when the respective callings of human=ind are respected and allowed and encouraged to develop 1ifferentiation is the process of specialisation of human tas=s and of human societal structures.@ van der Kroef C. that is. p 12) .$raham.$raham Kuyper and the rise of "eo4*alvinism in the "etherlands D Church (istory 1/ F1990G ))2 25 of 56 )1 © Chris Gousmett . since the view that the state derives its authority from the will of the people leads only to the tyranny of the ma:ority.

ll these were concentrated in . as with . who served as father. and is given $y >od in the ordering of creation These norms are fre%uently discovered intuitively. priest. 1922 5eprinted 19/9 26 of 56 © Chris Gousmett . and every other leadership function . and ( might add particularly in *harismatic *hristianity. with specific responsi$ilities given to some and not to others This is a recognition of the inherent diversity of human life created $y >od. which can $e verified through )3 For details of the wor= of the Holy 8pirit in driving the creation to its destiny see .-aco$G to the leadership of @oses and under him tri$al elders. and without demands on us to perform other tas=s "on4*hristian views of society sometimes see= to reverse this differentiation. that is. as with the "aAis.$raham. and the heads of families were no longer the supreme authority with power of life and death. and confirmed $y empirical analysis of society That is. norm is that $y which we discern the normal and the a$normal. and in some sections of the hippy and counter4culture movements of the past *ommunes which were set up under such views were often opposed to the differentiation of society. which was interpreted as fragmentation. and the different tas=s he has entrusted to each of us Through differentiation we are ena$led to carry out these tas=s without interference.$raham Kuyper he *or2 of the (oly $pirit *hapter 1. +art iv and passim >rand 5apidsE !illiam ? 7erdmans. and what part >od plays in it )3 1ooyeweerd descri$es the cause of the differentiation of various spheres as the wor= of >od governing the creation in ways that call for a dynamic unfolding of human social life Human response to >odBs call whether in o$edience or diso$edience gives us the differentiating world we have today. we have a sense of what should and should not $e happening in the structures of society. is the ina$ility to successfully relate cultural activity to the wor= of the Holy 8pirit ?ut in the neo4*alvinist vision of the Holy 8pirit driving the creation on towards its consummation in the full disclosure of its potential to the glory of >od we have a means of understanding $oth why cultural formation occurs. and the attempt was made to revert to undifferentiated societal life 8uch attempts failed $ecause they run counter to the inner dynamic of human life The differentiation and disclosure in human society of the hidden potential of the creation is driven forward $y its own inner dynamic. political leader. a situation we find in any undifferentiated tri$al society ?ut over time we see the increasing differentiation and diversification of tas=s. and in 5oman *atholicism. head of the army.$raham. where we see $oth the tragic conse%uences of human diso$edience as well as the greatness of >odBs grace at wor= in our midst The disclosure of society and its resulting differentiation is a normed disclosure (t does not follow ar$itrary directions $ut is governed $y the norm for that structure or institution . granting freedom to human cultural endeavour in a non4idolatrous manner will inevita$ly lead to that disclosure (n neo4 *alvinist terms this is seen as the special wor= of the Holy 8pirit within the creation One of the greatest wea=nesses of the dualistic approach to culture found in evangelical and li$eral +rotestant *hristianity. to the esta$lishment of the =ingship and various government officials in the =ingdom The priesthood was separated off from the political leadership.

19/9. nor can they fulfil the tas= of another sphere 7ach has sovereignty over its own tas= and the responsi$ility $efore >od to ensure that that tas= is carried out in o$edience to the norms for that tas= Over4expansion of the power of any one sphere threatens the other spheres. not to close it down The other pro$lem which constantly $esets "ew #ealand political life is the endless and sterile de$ate over Cinterventionism D This de$ate is $ased not on what is the proper understanding of the nature and tas= of government. prevent or stimulate some development or other in non4government areas of society (nstead of attempting to discern what the proper tas= of the state is. schools.examining the inner nature and tas= of those structures to see whether this truly characterises what is happening +olitical institutions follow the norm for the state. since to do so would hinder or prevent the development of $oth spheres according to their own proper inner nature and the norms they should follow This then leads to the concept of the sovereignty of each of the spheresE they have their own tas= to fulfil which cannot $e performed $y any other sphere. so that model is the only one considered appropriate for a wide variety of institutions The privatisation drive with free4mar=et and user4pays economics shaping the nature of every institution shows how distortion comes as a result of the domination of the whole of society $y one sphere Hospitals.432/ For a detailed analysis of this phenomenon see ?o$ >oudAwaard Capitalism and Pro"ress 27 of 56 © Chris Gousmett . $ut whether or not it is proper for the state to ar$itrarily intervene to ad:ust. since their unfolding must $e retarded $y that illegitimate domination $y that sphere "or can that sphere properly fulfil its own tas= since it is expending its effort erroneously on tas=s which are not proper to it An e6ample from . which calls us to open up society.s a result we see the reduction of all our institutions to economic enterprises.e* 7ealand . economic institutions for the norm for those particular structures. and everything else are all $eing forced into the mould of economic enterprises under the influence of an economistic ideology that refuses to accept the legitimacy of institutions which exist for purposes other than ma=ing a profit )) Unless this drive towards economic reductionism is halted then "ew #ealand society will cease to develop and differentiate and will $ecome what 1ooyeweerd calls a closed down societyE vast possi$ilities and potential will have no opportunity to $e disclosed $ecause they do not fit the only accepta$le model of human lifeE the economic enterprise )9 This is what >oudAwaard calls a Ctunnel society.n example of this in "ew #ealand is the way virtually everything has $een su$ordinated to economic growth and to the norm of profit4ma=ing . pp 32. housing. life within each sphere can unfold and develop in its own uni%ue $ut normed way This means that one sphere cannot dominate another. radio. marriage and family life according to the norms for those structures (n that way.D and a tunnel it must $e stressed which has no light at its end since it is leading us into the dar=ness away from the light of >odBs !ord. and then to do it. the de$ate over interventionism focuses on whether or not the state should act to produce a desired result in a specific situation )) )9 *f >oudAwaardNs stress on simultaneous realisation of norms Capitalism and Pro"ress! a dia"nosis of 0estern $ociety >rand 5apidsE 7erdmans.

as we find in the *atholic view of society (nstead. from which all the others derive their power and right to exist 5ather. or even in any measure The purpose of disclosure in society is to $ring the human potential to actualisation (t is a life4affirming process. co4ordinated with each other. these structures are all co4ordinate with each other That is. not su$ordinated to any one or more of them in a hierarchical fashion. life which is intrinsically of one piece and is su$:ect to the one <aw of >od for life !hile we can distinguish proper areas of responsi$ility and authority in life. a process of li$eration and restoration to wholenessE it is not a process of fragmentation or restriction !ithout this process of disclosure we would not even =now what our possi$ilities wereK $ut in disclosing society in this way new and exciting possi$ilities continually open up $efore us (t is a creative and open4ended process. human $eings live into all these spheres as whole $eings.?y re:ecting CinterventionismD the "ational >overnment has made it impossi$le for itself to act so as to ensure :ustice in non4government spheres of society. possi$ilities which >od has laid $efore us are prevented from $eing realised to the full. and has its own norms to follow. leaving many issues to resolution $y Cmar=et forces. nor may they $e hindered from doing so $y another structure !hile each sphere is sovereign in its own field. including the proper sovereignty of those spheres Those © Chris Gousmett 28 of 56 . that does not mean that it is isolated or independent of the other spheres. which arises from their own special tas=s The spheres of society receive their sovereignty from >od and not from the state That means that no one sphere or $earer of authority is the highest. which is not mediated $y another structure. with the tas= of protecting the other spheres of society (ts tas= is to ensure the esta$lishment and maintenance of :ust relations $etween all spheres. since the norms for the spheres are norms for human life as a whole. and to allow human life to unfold in all its fullness !ithout proper development and differentiation of human life. they are :ointly and individually su$:ect to the ordering !ord of >od. discerning a variety of sovereign spheres which have $een disclosed $y human cultural formation. not as fragmented $eings This differentiation is to permit the carrying out of specialised tas=s within human society. stimulated and $orne along $y the Holy 8pirit The state is only one of the spheres of society. which is immediately directing each and every structure in society 7ach structure must respond in its own way to the !ord of >od. society is comprised of all the spheres together. and not to allow people to live as though they had no responsi$ility or accounta$ility to others This process of differentiation and the realisation of a variety of norms is to serve human=ind in its responsi$ility $efore >od.D while CinterventionistsD often seem to want the state to ar$itrarily impose its will on non4government spheres of society so as to produce what is seen to $e a desired outcome There is no principle underlying such intervention which would ensure that the state is not overstepping its proper responsi$ilities nor neglecting others Only a grasp of the proper nature and tas= of the state can resolve such issues 8phere sovereignty is an attempt to clarify this situation $phere soverei"nty The principle of sphere sovereignty is simply the recognition that in society there is a diversity of structures each having their own internal structure and authority. to care for and develop the earth in a stewardly way.

it directs our faith and guides us in outwor=ing that faith on a daily $asis Theology. an unavoida$le state of affairs. accessi$le to ordinary *hristians without the necessity of theoretical training. since this violates the rights of persons to free development and responsi$ility 8ociety is correctly understood as individuals in relationshipK relationships that are not externally imposed. its articulation in *reeds. © Chris Gousmett 29 of 56 . whether voluntarily or compulsorily. since ultimately in that view individuals do not exist. which has a confessional forceE that is. collectivist views are excluded. the way in which >od has esta$lished the creation (n order to understand how Kuyper saw the principle of sphere sovereignty wor=ing it is necessary to consider the way in which 8cripture is understood in the "eo4*alvinist perspective The 8criptures are seen as a *ovenantal document. those that overreach their proper $ounds must $e drawn $ac= The areas of sovereignty of each sphere can $e discerned from >odBs revelation $oth directly and as it illuminates our experience and understanding of the world he has created The state may not interfere with the proper exercise of the authority of those sovereign spheres This derives from KuyperBs conception of society as made up of individuals in organic relationship with others in various societal structures (ndividuals in isolation do not existE they have their $eing only in and through the spheres of society C"o man is an islandD is KuyperBs view Kuyper held that the individual person can only find true freedom in ties with the institutions of society Therefore Kuyper also re:ected individualism. of theoretical characterG. so that access to the !ord of >od can come only through theology and theologians 5ather. and its practice in worship and in daily life. that is. its governing text in 8cripture. the $ody of *hristian $elievers has access directly to their covenant document.ll human $eings are placed in a num$er of communities !e are $orn into a we$ of relationships. $ut relationships within which we stand as created $eings formed $y >od in the community of human=ind . and results in a theoretical presentation of the results of this analysis The 8criptures are thus considered to $e not theological in character. $ut confessional. it cannot act in a mediating role. i e theology The difference is that the 8criptures do not present theoretical analysis $ut articulation of the faith (t is only the analytical reflection and construction of systems of thought using the materials of 8cripture which can $e considered theology !hile the wor= of theologians should serve the $ody of *hristian $elievers.that are wea= must $e ena$led to $ecome strong. only the relationships $etween them. since human $eings do exist as individuals. and not simply as mem$ers of society !e are not constituted $y our relationships. on the other hand. and so individualistic views of society are excluded @argaret Thatcher is one example of a radical individualist 8he has said that there is no such thing as society. which constitute our societal existence There is therefore no such thing as the autonomous and isolated individual. there are only individuals 8imilarly. which engages in analysis of the faith. since the individual is unthin=a$le outside of his or her family He also re:ected collectivism. $ut we are individuals in relationship. is considered to $e a human scientific enterprise Fthat is. an articulation of the revelation of >od to human=ind. the idea that the individual is the $asic unit of human society.

in the sacraments and in the fellowship of the saints ?ut that redeemed life of grace can also come to valid and full expression in politics. in creedal affirmation. then they could $e changed and altered or a$andoned without conse%uence should we so choose (nstead. in shortE in any conceiva$le human activity whatsoever ?y that ( mean that the new life given $y *hrist to the covenant people of >od shapes the direction in which they mould and unfold their lives and the institutions and activities in which they are involved The various structures of society are not human constructs. in proclamation of the 8criptures. the covenant people of >od who wish to wal= in o$edience in all that they do The church institution is seen not as the primary or sole means of expression of the life of discipleship. that grace is wor=ed out in everything they do (t can come to concrete expression in any =ind of institution whatsoever (n the church institution. we see that grace expressed in explicitly articulated form. Kuyper recognised the rights of trade unions with state © Chris Gousmett 30 of 56 . $ut it is not the neo4*alvinist view 5ather. and $ecause >odBs redemptive grace in *hrist comes to human $eings in the wholeness of their $eing. in worship.which directs and shapes their faith and their daily lives as they give expression to their lives in various structures of society Thus each structure in society has a responsi$ility to respond o$ediently to this covenant document. while other institutions can experience >odBs grace only through the mediation of the church This is the 5oman *atholic concept of sphere su$sidiarity. as the ideology of the 7nlightenment and revolution would contend (f that were the case. in $uilding construction. in discipling and teaching. coming from the hand of >od. $ut only as one sphere in which that discipleship is expressed ?ecause all spheres of society are rooted in the creation. in $an=ing. in education. in the arts. sees the structures of society esta$lished $y >od in the creation order. we cannot create structures which are not $ased on the potential >od has created. and that human=ind shapes and moulds these structures according to their desire Fwhether in sin or in o$edienceG The possi$ility of the structures of society is therefore a given.eo/Calvinist vie* of the church There have $een many pro$lems caused $y the concept that the church is the institution par excellence where the grace of >od is operative. nor can we simply a$olish such structures once disclosed and developed. in leisure activities. and while some of them are sometimes left latent in any particular society. the church institution is distinguished from the $ody of *hrist. since they are rooted in the enduring creation order esta$lished and upheld $y >od he responsibility of the state The responsi$ility of the state is to ensure :ust relationships within and $etween the other spheres of society For instance. what we find is that these structures are enduring and rooted in the indestructi$le order of creation The neo4*alvinist approach to creation. which directs them in the expression of their faith . which we considered $riefly in the previous chapter.

$ased on the common vision of the wor=ers 8ee ?o$ >oudAwaard Capitalism and Pro"ress. neither can an employer prevent mem$ership in a trade union 1ooyeweerd instead posits the idea of unions $ased on common perspectives on wor=ing lifeK a union $ased on the way wor=ers wish to conduct their activities and understand the world 8uch a union leaves people free to :oin or not. since mem$ership of a trade union is a voluntary association unrelated to carrying out a particular :o$.343.eo/Calvinist theory Unless we enter into a detailed analysis of the institutions and structured relationships $etween institutions in the world then we cannot develop a theory which supports the struggle for :ustice The functional analysis of such institutions and relationships ). pp 3.ct Fwhich a$olished compulsory union mem$ershipG was only the occasion and not the cause for their demise However. >ermany had 10 unions. one which people are free to :oin or not to :oin as they desire This is $ecause a trade union is not a necessary part of employmentK it is not an essential component of the a$ility to perform a particular tas= for an employer.D since this produces the tyranny of the rich over the wor=ing class He also denounced the tyranny of trade unions which attempted to impose their wishes on employers without regard to the proper norms which govern employer4employee relationships Trade unions are understood $y 1ooyeweerd to $e Cvoluntary associations. cannot $e true to its own nature This is one reason $ehind the collapse of the trade union movement in "ew #ealand The rather infamous 7mployment *ontracts .s a result Kuyper denounced laisse)$faire capitalism. )6 This is similar to the $asis of the trade union movement in 7urope generally !hile "ew #ealand previously had a$out )22 unions for its wor=ers. for more details of the *hristian approach to trade unions and wor= 8ee also < Kals$ee= Contours of a Christian Philosophy.9 31 of 56 © Chris Gousmett . in accordance with their agreement with the $asis on which the union operates ). a trade union which is imposed on all wor=ers in a particular industrial sector. as well as the rights of employersB groups "either employees nor employers were entitled to exploit or victimise the other . the ideology of the Cfree mar=et. in opposition to the concept of class warfare which underlies most trade union ideology Justice accordin" to the .ssociation of *anadaG. This positive approach to trade unions has led to the formation of *hristian Trade Unions not only in Holland $ut also in *anada Fthe *hristian <a$or .D that is. $ased on the common tas=s of the wor=ers.recognition of those unions. that is. regardless of their convictions. and it is in this *hristian la$our movement that some of the most interesting and fruitful wor= has $een done on the nature of wor= and employment in modern society )6 The tas= of the state is to protect the legitimate rights and interests of $oth employers and employees Kuyper wanted to esta$lish a co4operative perspective in $usiness. and so mem$ership cannot $e compulsory Trade unions are an additional way in which wor=ers can organise themselves for common purposes *ompulsory union mem$ership is a violation of the rights of individuals through the imposition of a collectivist ideology $ased on the supposed solidarity of all wor=ers 8ince wor=ers hold allegiances to different visions of society.

provided in neo4*alvinist theory is the =ind of :umping4off point we need in our social vision. and the way in which human sin has distorted and o$scured that ordering The conse%uence of such distortion is the denial of human rights and $oth personal and structural in:ustice The nature of human rights and of :ustice as understood in the neo4*alvinist view of society will $e the su$:ect of the next chapter )/ 8ee the review $y +aul @arshall #nakainosis 6 F1909G 9E32 32 of 56 © Chris Gousmett . $ut without the content or underlying theory of reality that Kuyper and 1ooyeweerd have postulated ?ut such an approach leaves the whole theory hanging in mid4air. and thus does not lead to any coherent account as to the nature of these spheres or their content 8imilarly !olterstorff wants to retain the idea of spheres of society. he holds that the different spheres are the product of convention. and without such an analysis our criti%ue of the in:ustices of society can only $e ar$itrary and groundless This pro$lem can $e seen in @ichael !alAerBs $oo= $pheres of Justice! A defence of pluralism and e-uality )/ !hile !alAer has independently developed a theory of the spheres of society which parallels that of Kuyper and 1ooyeweerd in a remar=a$le way. as it $ecomes then an ar$itrary theoretical construct and not an empirically4$ased interpretation of the way we experience the world (t is necessary to understand the structures of society in order to $e a$le to discern $oth the way in which >od has ordered the creation. he does not want to accept the =ind of ontological $asis for these spheres found in the neo4*alvinist tradition (nstead. social choice or social ha$it This cannot really explain the enduring nature of such spheres or their existence in widely diverse cultures and societies.

derived from the . and so :ustice is of no interest .lso. has no place for rights which allow any areas of freedom for activities apart from those defined $y central political authorities as socially desira$le .merican constitution. which in turn is derived from <oc=eBs theory This theory is that $y guaranteeing various human rights peace would naturally $e the result The origins of our theories of human rights are older than that. do not deal with :ustice Those who do see it as continuing. and political theory. which ultimately perpetuates the power of those in authority regardless of rights The collectivist view can then $e ignored as una$le.8# he nature of justice and human ri"hts One of the causes of in:ustice and violation of human rights in the world is that the structures of society are shaped $y sinful human $eings. i e 1ooyeweerd. since only a *hristian theory can $rea= through the idolatry of $oth individualistic and collectivistic conceptions of human life Those who see politics as a transient phenomena.nother reason why some political writers have little place for the concept of :ustice in their theory. rather than a humanistic perspective (t is only on a *hristian $asis that human rights can truly $e esta$lished. to grant genuine human rights to citiAens The main de$ate in !estern thought is with individualistic theories (uman ri"hts 9 ori"in and theories There has $een increasing interest in the idea of human rights since the 8econd !orld !ar . $ecause unwilling. the collectivist concept of society. large part of this is tied in to the United "ations declarations on human rights. that is. that is. in a way which was not the case prior to the war The U" *harter is $ased on concepts of natural law. some external standard $y which the actions of the state can $e :udged (n a collectivist view. what is convenient for the state to hold. do deal with :ustice That is. for instance Ho$$es and @arx. the state forms its own norms. only a theory of society that gives a positive place to political life will $other developing a theory of :ustice The @arxist view of politics is intrinsically negative. however For . as found in @arxist thought.ristotle. i e Karl @arx. and it is only with the redemption and reformation of these structures that :ustice will increase However. *hristians have $een slow to develop theories of human rights that are undergirded $y a *hristian theory of society. proportionality was the central element in :ustice He also insisted that it was essential to avoid ar$itrariness 4 which is impossi$le on that view The general pattern is to approach :ustice negatively -ustice can only $e :ust if it discriminates The emperor -ustinian esta$lished the classical formula for :usticeE to render to each his due This view predominated in western society until the seventeenth century when other views $egan to develop under the influence of 5enaissance ideals There are considera$le pro$lems created $y this classical definition that defy resolution They areE aG who are the CeachDL © Chris Gousmett 33 of 56 . and this issue has $ecome prominent in national and international politics. is $ecause they have little place for norms.

%uinas. and though they spo=e of :ustice.ugustine and . right. and that these will wor= themselves out in every area of life Therefore to impose a CsecularistD view on society which expects personal religious commitment to remain in the $ac=ground. on the spurious $elief that it is of no direct relevance to daily life. therefore un:ust state laws have no real existence since they do not derive from the le& aeterna 5oman law was $ased on actions 4 rights were $ased on retri$ution and remedy for infringement of rights They were not defined in themselves Those who are trained in the 5oman tradition. either then or now (t was part of the way in which !estern culture as a whole has seen the structure of society . fitting.$andonment of the *onstantinian model of society means accepting either a secularist view or a religiously pluralist view The secularist view The secularist view is that religion is a private matter that can $e and indeed should $e excluded from pu$lic affairs ?ut this is not a correct understanding of the nature of religion as the fundamental directing force in human life. is to violate the integrity and wholeness of human life (t leads only to fragmentation and inauthenticity. they failed to thin= through how they could live in a :ust society with those with whom they disagreed This is partly a conse%uence of their continued acceptance of the *onstantinian idealE that the mem$ership of the church and of the state was identical However. where it was related to the ratio of >od The *e& naturalae is em$edded in the ratio of human=ind.$G cG dG eG who rendersL what is due. nor of the nature of the CprivateD and Cpu$lic D The pluralist view +luralism on the other hand is the ac=nowledgment that people do have fundamental Fand differingG religious commitments. i e . !olterstorff stresses that this failing was not uni%ue to the *alvinists. and human reason was thought to participate in the ratio of >od 8tate laws are positivisations of natural law. the =ind of $reeding4ground which fosters in:ustice © Chris Gousmett 34 of 56 . are thus wea= on theories of pu$lic legal rights This 8toic concept of a Claw of natureD is a merely legal conception of existence Human life is wider than its legal aspect The early Calvinist view !olterstorff suggests that the early *alvinist understanding of o$edience was repressive. etc L how is this measuredL how does one $alance various duesL 8eneca developed the idea of the le& aeterna which was passed through *icero to .fri=aans lawyers in 8outh .frica.

that is. in spite of the attempts from within the post45enaissance rationalistic tradition to do this (n the reformational approach. where we grasp something of the structural condition resulting from the >od4ordained norm The logical definition is only one way in which things can $e =nown. are a$le to $e denied their rights without retri$ution on those who deny them This applies to the un$orn. so that governments have rights $ecause they are the recipients of transferred natural rights Fsocial contract theoriesG 5ights and law4ma=ing competence are confused. if that understanding of what your self4 interest is changes. $ut with the desire to secure :ustice for all of >odBs creatures as an expression of >odBs love "atural rights views hold that rights are the $asis of political power. then the rights change On a more sinister note. the mentally incompetent and the aged 5ights then are denied to the wea= and the powerlessK an o$viously anti4*hristian perspective Our concern with rights is not in the first place for our own self4interest and security. the meaning of :ustice is primarily =nown within the context of the experience of :ustice. it cannot $e exhaustively defined or grasped intellectually.John 1oc2e There were no genuine theories of human rights prior to -ohn <oc=e. and there is no $asis in such a theory on which this can $e challenged 8ince rights are esta$lished to protect self4interest. as a sign of an individualBs own power and autonomy . and there is difficulty in accounting for how one person can have rights over another. have no way of expressing self4interest and claiming rights. and so such a definition can never grasp the totality of things -ustice therefore cannot $e reduced to a definition. that is. not state4citiAen relationships However. although definitions have their uses ?ut such definitions remain a secondary tas= to the concrete experience of :ustice which ta=es place in the fullness of life The ade%uacy or © Chris Gousmett 35 of 56 . <oc=eBs view was individualistic The humanistic individualist approach to human rights means that they arise from human agreement and human will 5ights are what a person and other people agree they should $e 8uch rights stem from self4interest.o definition of justice 8ince :ustice is a norm for human life given $y >od.s soon as such rights start to intrude on your desire to do something. they will $e repudiated. not concern for the well4$eing of all 5ights are esta$lished $ecause people $elieve they will personally $enefit from doing so 8uch rights arise not from the gift of >od to ensure freedom to serve >od and others. the young. resulting in a dialectic which alternates $etween :ustifying total authority for the state to protect rights or denying all authority to the state lest it invade rights There is difficulty in such views in providing specifically political norms for relationships $etween people . on this theory those who cannot assert their will. $ut from human desire. who was the first to write on human rights in a pu$lic legal sense 7arlier wor= on rights was on private legal inter4individual relationships.

as that is an infringement from within. so there is no reason why such agreements should not $e violated. which is the ultimate violation of a relationship $etween people Rights are relational (f rights are privileges of $eing mem$ers of a community.n isolated individual needs no rightsO ?ut $ecause we are not isolated individuals. namely. $ut is expressed communally 7ven other passages such as >enesis 9E6 place the image of >od in terms of community. since there are ways in which community cannot flourish simply through allocating rights to individuals . or from the perspective of the community of which they are a part. even $y doing so in terms of C$eing created in the (mage of >odD must lead to incoherence and inconsistencies . $ut only $y what >od re%uires of human $eings Only on such a $asis can :ustice $e truly impartial he $criptural vie* of ri"hts The 8criptural conception of what it means to $e human is to live in community (t is only in communal life that we have rights.otherwise of such a definition with therefore $e dependent on the orientation of oneBs life towards the >od who esta$lished this world with a norm for :ustice The attempt to provide a criterion for rights from within the autonomous human will is the hallmar= of humanism. something a person somehow owns. their content cannot $e determined $y human desires or interests. then we have rights in terms of proper relationship with others !e can tal= a$out rights from the perspective of the individual. $ut ma=es it possi$le !e cannot claim rights $y virtue of any intrinsic properties of human nature. $ut we cannot tal= a$out rights in isolationE rights exist only in relationship The legal order does not create © Chris Gousmett 36 of 56 . including the violation of the freedoms of others Only if freedom and rights are guaranteed $y external norms can the human will $e limited. then rights will $ring people together rather than pull them apart ?ut grounding rights in human autonomy does not create community. since it is only in communal life that rights are needed To claim that we have rights. only in relationship to others . and the attempt to ground human rights in an inherent dignity of the person. careful reading of >enesis 1 indicates that the Cimage of >odD is not something inherent in individuals. or an o$ligation to meet the needs of others (f community is the necessary context for rights. $ut persons in relationship. and one person can claim rights which another must recogniAe 5ights are safeguarded only when they are founded on a divinely4esta$lished order >odBs law does not violate human freedom. which must $e given legal status 5ights are relationalE ( have no rights in and of myself. then. and must inevita$ly fail since this $asis is inade%uate The claim to have freedom from any limitation on the person apart from those to which they have agreed is self4contradictory. is an implicit re:ection of the enlightenment ideal of the autonomous individual. right is not su$:ective. then genuine allocation of rights will lead to the formation and strengthening of community Thus communities as such have rights. since an autonomous person cannot $ind itself even to its own agreements. $ut only $y virtue of our uni%ue covenantal relationship esta$lished $y >od with his human creatures ?ecause rights are >od4given. the prohi$ition of murder.

any view which sees rights as pertaining to individuals cannot esta$lish a :ust society -ustice is the character of a society in which there are proper relationships $etween its mem$ers >ranting rights to individuals in isolation leads to conflicts $etween mem$ers in society in actualising rights in an individualistic manner This then leads to the attempt to C$alanceD rights $etween individuals so that one personBs rights do not infringe on anotherBs ?ut this then leads to conflict. $ut they do not determine what rights are and so cannot allot rights ar$itrarily or su$:ect to political discretion 5ights are $ased on the creation order given $y >od.thin"sK it only esta$lishes proper relationship $etween things. a school has no rights. e g commercial enterprises are Clegal personsD in law ?ut institutions are not Clegal personsD $ut Cstructured functional relationshipsD of persons and thus entitled to appropriate rights as such and not through a legal fiction For instance. since for Kuyper that selfsame sovereignty of >od over all human=ind guaranteed their e%uality True human authority reflects and is rooted in the authority of >od. then granting of rights results in the adoption of responsi$ilities for each other This is in fact the $asis of the granting of rights. and so infringements will inevita$ly eventuate 5ights are then located only in the context of relationships within society. which are one way in which the community carries out such responsi$ilities 1enial of responsi$ilities for others is in fact a denial of the possi$ility of the granting of rights >overnments can positivise rights through law4ma=ing. that is in interdependence in community. $ut the individuals who teach or study at the school do This failure to recognise the rights of institutions causes many pro$lems The way this is addressed in law is usually $y the Clegal fictionD of considering these institutions as a CpersonD for purposes of law. and thus is the guarantee of $asic human li$erties "othing in >odBs creation can of itself function as a source and centre of authority . and so a right cannot $e something owned or possessedK it can only $e something to which we are entitled in terms of relationship with others This idea which grounds rights in communal relationships also leads to responsi$ilities as inherent in the granting of rights 8ince rights are located in the context of relationships. and the state can only ensure that such rights are recognised and protected +o rights and legal status for institutions One of the pro$lems of !estern li$eral democracy is that rights and legal status are given only to individuals and not to institutions For instance. and cannot $e torn apart $y state decree or interference .s a result of rights $eing relational and not inherent in the autonomous individual. and they are concerned with the esta$lishment of proper relationships $etween individuals and institutions Kuyper’s view Kuyper stood firmly against the concept of popular sovereignty.ll authority is given $y >od. which he saw as a repudiation of the sovereignty of >od That does not mean that he denied human rights. a family has the right to continued institutional existence. and the diverse authorities © Chris Gousmett 37 of 56 . $ecause the idea of the individual with inherent rights does not have any natural limits to the rights that can $e granted.

are correlated with the diverse tas=s given $y >od and given institutional form in society. and each with its own calling to fulfil and responsi$le to >od for that calling Fsphere sovereigntyG © Chris Gousmett 38 of 56 . each institution with its own internal structure and tas=.

@ichael !alAer asserts that e%uality is necessarily complex. etc which are not legal in character $ut rights nevertheless The state is uni%uely %ualified to ensure human rights as it is the only community which em$races all individuals within a territory regardless of their other communal functions Human rights are at ris= unless they are given legal status through the stateBs positivising of law for them which ma=es them civil rights The competency of the state is to recognise the relationships $etween individuals and institutions in differentiated spheres of life This does not mean the state defines rights in relation to the state $ut rights $etween individuals and institutions even when the state is not otherwise involved in that relationship The state provides a $asis for civil law that esta$lishes a $asis for claiming rights (n this way a :ust society can $e formed -ustice also is not a human convention $ut a norm esta$lished $y >od for human community That is.D is considered $eyond the competence of the state to rectify (f normativity is centred on the individual person in this way. however. as well as $y other means. it includes different types of e%ualities and different things a$out which to $e e%ual He saidE C"o social good 6 should $e distri$uted to men and women who possess some other good y merely $ecause they possess y and without regard to the meaning of 6 D +roper distri$utive principles thus vary within the different spheres of society !hile !alAer does not use the neo4*alvinist concept of sphere sovereignty. and not :ust a dead letter This calling from >od to do :ustice is a calling for responsi$ility Human response to that calling is. which is somewhat dis:ointed and ar$itrary. the point he ma=es is well ta=en )0 )0 5eview $y +aul @arshall #nakainosis 6 F1909G 9E10419 39 of 56 © Chris Gousmett . $ecause the e%uality $etween individuals cannot $e derived mathematically For instance. in every circumstance and at all times The pro$lem of $asing a concept of :ustice on natural human rights is that the state cannot ma=e rights $ut only recognise them This restricts political action. which ena$les human community to exist and which provides the standard which it is called to reach as a life4 giving ordinance (t is not a static law or neutral measuring4rodK it is a divinely granted gift to human life and is full of the life of the 8pirit. although fulfilling some concept of Crights. that is. fre%uently in re:ection of that calling and is conditioned $y sin -ustice is of universal validity (t impinges on every person. then rights theory is more geometrical in nature than :uridical That is issues such as Ce%ualityD $ecomes mathematical rather than :uridical (f everyone has CxD amount of a right then C:usticeD is done. ade%uate income.(uman ri"hts and justice not human conventions Human rights arise from the order of creation and not from the state They are therefore not ClegalD rights $ut ChumanD rights. institution and community. although they must $e protected and ena$led $y legal means. since rights are prior to :ustice. i e education. and the content of :ustice is given $y rights 8o a situation which appears intuitively un:ust. it is a condition for the creation given $y >od. even if the conse%uences are intuitively un:ust. using instead his own conception of different spheres.

in the cases mentioned often either religious affiliation or ethnic origin This is a purely ar$itrary and un:ust approach to politics. 8outh . even com$ining freedom and e%uality as the norms for :ustice does not manage to overcome the separate pro$lems of what is freedom and what is e%uality Freedom within the creation cannot $e a$solute. and to use that same principle to deal )9 8ee for instance the recognition of this in the article C7thnic groups funding criticised after education. conflict arises $ecause political issues are $eing dealt with not according to political ri"hts $ut according to some other non/ political factor.tago aily Times. <e$anon. leading to differing cultural expressions. etc who may have more su$stantial agreement with those of the same religious root commitment of another ethnic $ac=ground than with those of the same ethnic $ac=ground $ut of different religious commitment "on4political factors. and the society which we form is shaped $y the norms esta$lished $y >od in the creation which govern human life That means that the diversity and complexity of human life must $e recognised if :ustice is to $e done. are $eing used to determine political issues )9 This is not to deny that @aoris as a group have suffered in:ustices in the past. came the insistence on granting legal recognition to that diversity. with continuing ramifications in the present day ?ut those in:ustices were largely rooted in the use of this false principle.D $ut disagreement as to what state of affairs is :ust This disagreement is caused $y the outwor=ing of the content of :ustice and the relation of :ustice to norms CFreedom. and from their recognition that human=ind has differing religious root commitments. the repu$lics of Hugoslavia and the former 8oviet Union. $ut in the ensuring of :ustice for all regardless of religious or ethnic origin From this comes the reformational insistence on a pluralist view of society The idea that society is a monocultural entity was long ago re:ected $y Kuyper and his followers. namely ethnic origin. i e economic freedom has to deal with scarcity. as well as in Fi:i. pagans.There is general agreement a$out the meaning of C:ustice.frica. whether or not this is recognised Human rights are thus rooted in the creation order. since >od has created a diverse and complex world he problem of political ri"hts and issues One of the complexities of our modern world is the conflict $etween different groups contending for political supremacy The cause of much of this conflict lies in the application of non/political factors to political issues Thus in "orthern (reland. creational limits of supply Freedom then is limited $y the possi$ilities of the creation. and so the nature of creation as a given $y >od inherently impinges on all our discussions of freedom and rights. which is not a$out the maintenance of the power of an ethnic or religious faction in society. health cuts D . which is the heart of his doctrine of sphere sovereignty The C$i4culturalD approach ta=en in "ew #ealand still fails to recognise the non4political factors at wor= in what are essentially political de$ates @aori and 7uropean population groups are not monolithic entitiesE within them there are *hristians. humanist li$erals. to decide political issues according to non4political factors. 0 -une 1993 40 of 56 © Chris Gousmett . since the creation has a finite character. to mention a situation closer to home. that is.D Ce%ualityD or Cfreedom and e%ualityD are seen as the norms for :ustice However.

$ut in negative terms. which is indeed distri$utive . religious.9. as is held in some streams of *hristian theology. and :ustice done to all without fear or favour The 8criptures teach that >od loves :ustice F(saiah 61E0. 19. +salm 192E13G .cts 1/E36' The use of ethnic.ccording to !olterstorff this is not a retributive :ustice that is grounded in >odBs anger over wic=edness. or other non4political factors in determining the distri$ution of political power must inevita$ly lead to in:ustice. it is incum$ent on others to give it to them. and it is only as we recognise the community of all human $eings as >odBs creatures governed $y the norm of :ustice that human rights will $e honoured. p 60 41 of 56 © Chris Gousmett .ttri$utive :ustice attri$utes to $eings what they are and can claim to $e 1istri$utive :ustice gives to any $eing the proportion of goods which is due to him &sic'K retri$utive :ustice does the same. in terms of deprivation of goods or active punishment This latter consideration ma=es it clear that there is no essential difference $etween distri$utive and retri$utive :ustice ?oth of them are proportional and can $e measured in %uantitative terms 93 -aul . +salm )/E30G and also does :ustice F+salm 12)E6. $ut what could $e called an attributive :ustice in which >odBs love of :ustice is grounded in his love for the victims of in:ustice 92 !olterstorff calls it a distributive :ustice. since these are inappropriate factors on which to $ase political action (t is only within the community of human relationships that rights have reality and meaning.with the pro$lems does not redress the in:ustices $ut simply create new situations of in:ustice A Christian vie* on ri"hts and justice >od has made of one $lood all the nations of human=ind The common origin and unity of human=ind is a $asic *hristian principle &.arshall 92 "icholas !olterstorff C!hy care a$out :usticeLD The Reformed /ournal )6 F1906G 0E9 (n using this term ( am following +aul @arshall 91 93 +aul Tillich 1ove: po*er and justice "ew Hor=E Oxford University +ress.n attri$utive view on the other hand would $e more concerned with granting the wea= power to ac%uire what they need than providing them with their needs +aul Tillich discusses the various aspects of :ustice $ased on the term Ctri$utive D . $ut in my opinion the term attributive91 is prefera$le as this view of :ustice is not concerned so much with apportioning to persons as with appropriating on $ehalf of them !olterstorff indicates his view concerns the a$ility of the wea= to ac%uire what they need. and if they are not a$le to do so.

not the primary tas=. of :ustice (n other words. since :ustice must inevita$ly involve punishment for wrongdoing. $ut only if it has forgotten the meaning of the <am$ 9. who are also the enemies of >od. and is undou$tedly retri$utive 9) ?ut :ustice cannot originally have $een retri$utive since this necessarily implies a reaction against a prior act. and only secondarily retri$ution. ?er=ouwer goes on to stress that to hold that the eschatological turna$out $rought in $y the =ingdom is rooted in resentment and desire for revenge. is a $rutaliAation and perversion of the ?i$lical eschatology The theme of Cthe last shall $e firstD is not a 9) ($id . of disarming and dethroning and exaltationK $oth reflect an eschatological outloo= on the unveiling of reality as it is to the eyes of >od (t is. p 1)2 > * ?er=ouwer he return of Christ >rand 5apidsE 7erdmans. then HannahBs and @aryBs songs of praise F1 8am 3E9ffK <u=e 1E. even a retri$utive :ustice. citing H 1ooyeweerd A . p 1)3 H 1ooyeweerd A . the attri$utive tas= of :ustice is prelapsarian. possi$le for the idea of retri$ution to arise in a perversion of this religion. resolution.er2ou*er 1ooyeweerd stresses that the opposition to the idea of retri$ution in modern criminological thought is $ecause it considers retri$ution to $e Cnothing $ut a residue of the unreasona$le instinct of revenge D The repudiation of the idea of retri$ution for this reason cannot $e sustained. and restitution ?ecause the norms of >odBs law which holds for the creation cannot presuppose the presence of sin Fwhich only came su$se%uent to the creationG then :ustice must involve primarily attri$ution. 19/3. p )11 42 of 56 99 9. while the He$rew concepts of t)edekah and mishpat are not 1ooyeweerd held that the concept in the -ustinian code of Crender to each their dueD was $ased on the >ree= and 5oman ideals of :ustice. i e recompense.e* Criti-ue of heoretical hou"ht Iol ((.1ffG are also resentment. a positive tas=. as do all words with re4. even though there may $e elements of revenge and resentment in the hearts of the oppressed and downtrodden who finally see their enemies. of course. for $oth 4 through visionary illumination 4 sing of a radical turna$out in all relationships. a negative one The latter tas= of :ustice only came into $eing as a response to sin (t is not an unaccepta$le aspect of :ustice. while the retri$utive tas= of :ustice is postlapsarian -ustice then $ecomes a normative response to an anormative situation (erman )ooye*eerd and G C . © Chris Gousmett . as it is rooted in the 7nlightenment view that criminality must $e treated rationally.@arshall suggests that the >ree= and 5oman concept of :ustice Fdike0 iusG are retri$utive in force. $ut it is a derivative tas=. overthrown and :udged (n fact it is the <am$ of >od who $rings His healing order into the confusion of feelings in human hearts (f this is resentment. while revenge is irrational 99 ?er=ouwer points out that in ?i$lical eschatology the focus is not revenge $ut :ustice.e* Criti-ue of heoretical hou"ht Iol ((.

. ?ut. 5omans 1E39430. in that our sins are $orne $y the 5edeemer. since there is no warrant in 8cripture for such a view 90 There is in 8cripture ample $asis for seeing retri$ution in the redeeming wor= of >od ?ecause >od often does not operate according to retri$utive :ustice. an inescapa$le. nor ta=en in a merely moralistic sense. the :ustice of >od cannot $e held to $e without the retri$utive element.1 © Chris Gousmett . pp )994)9. as in the examples a$ove.n example is found in the $oo= of -onahP -onah wanted to see retri$utive :ustice carried out. to $e sure. how can the oppressed $e freedL The wrath of >od expresses the :udgement of >od against those who are oppressors. unchangea$le esta$lished order which impresses itself on human society This natural law em$races all of reality. is inherently different to the *hristian conception that >od punishes sin.1 This classical idea of retri$ution. 8cripture does contain the notion of >odBs retri$utive :ustice. 33E0. 190/. 19/0. there is a retri$ution for those who 96 9/ ?er=ouwer. 19/1. it is often to $e understood within the context of >odBs shalom :ustice For it results $oth in the punishment of those who maintain an un:ust situation and in the redressing of the wrongs of those who cannot o$tain :ustice $ecause of their powerlessness 99 ?er=ouwer points out that >odBs :ustice is revealed in the cross. Hosea 12E1). +salm /)E1/ff. and the ungodly are :ustified .ible+s *ord for salvation: justice and peace "ewtonE Faith and <ife +ress. we need to see it in context 8halom :ustice has two sidesE aid for the needy is oneK the other is the $rea=ing of the power of the oppressor For without :udgement on the oppressor. i$id. sometimes complaints are raised against >od . and that retri$utive punishment for sin is not essential for >odBs :ustice to $e manifest (n the cross we find grace and forgiveness.4)// > * ?er=ouwer 92 he return of Christ.2 The classical idea of retri$utive :ustice is derived from >ree= concepts of natural law. pp )/. $ut that was not the :ustice of >od "ow. >alatians 6E/49. however. p )13 ?er=ouwer refers to +rover$s 1E36. isolated from his love. $in. those who support an un:ust status %uo of no shalom 8o. that is. to indicate there is no reason to deny the concept of retri$ution $in >rand 5apidsE 7erdmans. since punishment of wrongdoing is inherent in maintaining :ustice 9/ ?ut neither can the :ustice of >od $e understood as revenge. since there $oth the love and the :ustice of >od are manifest.4)6 ?er=ouwer he return of Christ. pp /40 43 of 56 .2 . pp ). then. p )9) *f also ?er=ouwer.Cpsychology of retri$utionD $ut the revelation of the true nature of things 96 However. pp )94 90 99 +erry ? Hoder $halom! he . we do find cases of >odBs wrath and vengeance ?ut to understand this side of >odBs :ustice. and human or positive law is an expression of natural law .1engerin= he idea of justice in Christian perspective TorontoE !edge +u$lishing Foundation.

$ut only as >odBs covenant with his creatures Thus there is a retri$utive aspect to >odBs :udgement of human=ind. and only >odBs :ustice is free from all partiality and desire for revenge © Chris Gousmett 44 of 56 . $ut this is to $e seen not as revenge $ut as desert $ased on the violation of the covenant there$y incurring the penalty for sin . which cannot $e understood as natural law.ny re:ection of a retri$utive moment in >odBs :udgement is at odds with the *hristian confession >od is the :udge of all the earth who does right.violate the commandments of >od.

results not in the sacralisation of society $ut in civil religion and 1eism .3 8ee Herman 1ooyeweerd he Christian idea of the $tate p viii 45 of 56 © Chris Gousmett . the church re:ected this claim and confessed the <ordship of *hrist was supreme even over the emperor This political claim resulted in the persecution of the church. the grace of >od is a$sent .<# he tas2 of the institutional church in relation to the state One of the pro$lems which has plagued !estern history is the conflict concerning ultimate sovereignty $etween the institutional church and the state !hile in the early days of the church the conflict with the pagan 5oman (mperium was with its claims to supreme sovereignty. communicated through the ministrations of the clergy. and only $y correcting our understanding in that regard can the pro$lem truly $e resolved The church The church institution has fre%uently attempted to gain some =ind of control over society through its official clergy. not that the church had sovereignty over the emperor $overei"nty of church and state This distinction is important. nor artificially draw a $oundary $etween them as in . since the mediaeval approach was that the institutional church. claiming to $e the representatives of *hrist on earth. and the remainder of society is a recipient of that grace only $y means of the ministrations of the church This was a result of the ecclesialisation of the =ingdom of >od and the usurpation of the sovereignty of >od. the church is seen as the $earer of divine grace. wherever the church does not exercise its control. claimed :urisdiction over the state This was $ased on natureMgrace dualism. a concept which continues to plague *hristianity (n such a concept.ttempts to see the grace of >od operative in society outside of the *hurch.3 which occurred sporadically until *onstantine $ecame emperor ?ut at no time had the church claimed sovereignty over the state The conflict was over the claim that *hrist was sovereign over the emperor. while granting the continuation of the church in its present form. and anomalies must continually present themselves The doctrine of sphere sovereignty re:ects $oth natureMgrace dualism and the $asis on which the conflict $etween church and state is $asedE the contention for supreme control in society This conflict arises from a false conception of the nature of the church and its role in society. so that the =ingship of *hrist over all of life came to $e identified with the supremacy of the church over the rest of society The doctrine of sphere sovereignty provides the only way in which the impasse can $e resolved This does not su$ordinate the state to the church.. $ut the conse%uence of this has $een nothing short of destructive for *hristianity ?y seeing the church institution as the means where$y the grace of >od is made present in society. an approach which will always provide employment for lawyers $ecause it is fundamentally incorrect in its $asic assumptions.merican :urisprudence. nor su$ordinate the church to the state.

as would $e the case if this view were asserted from within the traditional understanding of the church 5ather.) For a contemporary <utheran analysis. so as not to exclude vast num$ers of people from access to that grace ?ut if we ta=e seriously the ?i$lical teaching that >od ma=es his grace availa$le to us through *hrist alone. is restricted to the ministrations and control of the church institution This false conception gives rise to $oth deistic concepts of the relationship of >od to society. and rules in society in virtue of $eing creator The conclusion of this two4realm theory. state and other spheres. holds that *hrist in his office as =ing and redeemer is supreme over one world. no revelation and no redemption >od will not communicate with human=ind apart from through *hrist. and at the same time develop a truly ?i$lical understanding of how that grace is made availa$le to the world.) he neo/Calvinist concept The neo4*alvinist concept. and through *hrist alone. is that the church and the state are divorced from one another. *hrist rules the church as saviour4=ing. acting as his am$assadors and heralds ?ut instead. while other areas are exempt from that =ingship of *hrist 5ather. $y contrast.ustad C. and the attempts to see the grace of >od at wor= in other religions. one society. is a distortion of the message of 8cripture The pro$lem is not that >od closes off vast areas of human life and huge num$ers of people from receipt of his grace. the .ttitudes towards the state in !estern theological thin=ing D Themelios 16 F1992G 10433 46 of 56 © Chris Gousmett . the role of the church is to proclaim the rulership of *hrist and to ma=e =nown the availa$ility of divine grace directly to all human society through *hrist The church is the servant of the =ing. as for instance through other religions. and it is only through *hrist that divine grace is made availa$le to human $eings Outside of *hrist there is no grace. it is a distinction which ena$les human $eings to order their lives helpfully and fruitfully *hrist the 5edeemer is =ing over human societyE the whole of it. see Torliev . then these pro$lems do not arise *hrist is =ing of the church That much is true and generally accepted *hrist is =ing over all human society That is also true.The truth on which the role of the church is $uilt is that >od has no other mediator than -esus *hrist. one human=ind ?ut human $eings are responsi$le to *hrist as =ing and redeemer not only in their mem$ership of the *hurch. and the *hristian tas= in the sphere of the state is to choose the lesser of two evils. from which divine grace Ctric=les downD to others. the pro$lem is that it is assumed that the grace of >od made availa$le to all human=ind through *hrist. not only a part The tas= of the church is not to act as the realm of *hristBs rule. $ut in every sphere of society The distinction $etween church. which is an attempt to integrate the evangelical understanding of the >ospel with the mediaeval concept of society. does not set up areas over which *hrist has supremacy. and the attempt to develop some concept where$y divine grace is present apart from *hrist. $ut whichever choice is made it is inescapa$ly evil . as wealth is purported to do in some demented economic theories 5ather. although not so widely accepted ?ut the pro$lem has $een in how this =ingship over $oth church and human society is understood (n the <utheran tradition.

$ringing the light of >odBs word into their wor= and leisure (f we do not ma=e the © Chris Gousmett 47 of 56 . are ali=e and e%ually the ministers of >od &5omans 1)E9 FlitE deaconsG and 6. while the church is secularised $y see=ing to remain relevant to this secularised society through adopting its agendas and programmes The state The officials of the state. complexity and variety The 8criptures have unfortunately $een restricted to the sphere of the institutional church.s church institution. the church must restrict itself to proclaiming the message of the covenant ?ut as $ody of *hrist. as much as the officials of the church. who have this diversity of tas=s and responsi$ilities They call us to allegiance to *hrist in everything. cut off from >od and considered to have independence and autonomy. ma=ing =nown and ma=ing clear to $elievers and un$elievers ali=e what >od re%uires of us in every area of life The officials of the state are charged with carrying out their tas= in ways which are consonant with the revelation of 8cripture. a world created and sustained $y >od That covenant $etween human=ind and >od is not a covenant for church life. that is. however. and deprived from the rest of society. opportunities and authorities The doctrine of sphere sovereignty is the recognition of this fact. and point to the renewal and recreation of that life in *hrist as redeemer That message of 8cripture as revealing the covenantal nature of human life in all its fullness is the message given to the institutional church as its peculiar responsi$ility to proclaim he tas2 of the church in relation to the state !hat is the tas= of the church in relation to the life of the stateL . responsi$ilities. as 5omans 1) ma=es clear The un$elievers. $ut the covenantal document which reveals to us the nature of our relationship to >od and the true meaning and reality of the world in which we live. grace has $een loc=ed up within the church. 1 +eter 3E1)419' They are not different in dignity or importance. it can and must engage in any and every area of life as am$assadors of * has often acted as if it were *hristBs regents. $ut only in function The officials of the church are charged with the proclamation of the 8criptures. whose lives cannot $e carved up into $its ?ut we do live our lives within the or$it of different spheres of life. will not $e aware of the re%uirements of >od or the authority and responsi$ility delegated to them $y >od in this respect. su$mission to the lordship of *hrist in the whole of life. $ut for human life in all its diversity. resulting in the secularisation of $oth church and society as a whole 8ociety is secularised. with its officials ruling in his stead and see=ing to see all human society come under their sway Through this means. with implications for life outside that sphere often limited to ethical issues only ?ut human life has an integrity and coherence which cannot $e destroyed !e are not different people in the church than we are in the state or in the family or in $usiness !e are whole human $eings. and an attempt to understand the simultaneous diversity and unity of human life The 8criptures as our covenant document address us as whole people. with differing tas=s. and it is the tas= of the church to ma=e this =nown 8cripture is not a source4$oo= for theology or a manual for devotions.

does not encompass all $elievers even in that locality Thus the tas= of the institutional church does not encompass the tas= of the community of $elievers ?ut the doctrine of sphere sovereignty places all human institutions on a parK none is superior to any other. not :ust in the political arena Unfortunately our methods of evangelism are often identified with the gospel. $ut rather is the good news of redemption in *hrist which is the root of that evangelism. in world4formative fashion The gospel when $rought into the sphere of political life remains unchangedK $ut the way in which that message is proclaimed and applied must $e related to the hearers in ways they will understand and appreciate ?ut that is true of any proclamation of the gospel. that does not grant the church any privilegeE it is a function it fulfils as >odBs servants. and thus the enduring conflict. $ut as two fruits of the one root. that message of grace is a call to conversion and renewal of political life. and to neglect either one is to denature the gospel Thus identifying the gospel with the evangelistic message leads to a world4denying message. and all have their appointed tas=s to fulfil The grace of >od comes to all of them e%ually. as this is usually done within a dualistic framewor= that separates the CspiritualD life of human $eings from their concrete. and at the same time that gospel is the root of social action Thus evangelism and social action are related to each other not as competing and antagonistic activities. and in the demonisation and secularisation of the rest of human life "ature4grace dualism isolates the rest of society from >odBs grace.ll have their proper place in society. and the $ody of *hrist which incorporates all those who $elong to *hrist. 19/6.distinction $etween the church as humanly4formed institution.9 . pp 911491) 48 of 56 © Chris Gousmett . seeing the church as the channel through which this comes Thus society receives divine grace derivatively and not directly The church is not the channel of grace. and a$le to $e a recipient of grace only through the mediation of that institution The church as humanly4shaped institution limited to a particular time and place. especially in evangelical circles. individual and corporate. while the rest of society is divorced or cut off from divine grace. including the church !hile the church has as its special tas= the proclamation of the redeeming message of that grace. then we will end up identifying the church institution with the =ingdom of >od The conse%uence of that is to see the church as the area of *hristBs rule. from all ages and in all places. $odily existence . none is inferior to any other . not as mem$ers of any societal institution. and any attempt to control the grace of >od and restrict it to that institution results in transforming the church into an idol. personal and institutional. and none has any privileged access to >od or to his $lessings (t is as human $eings in covenantal relationship with >od that we receive his grace.9 > * ?er=ouwer he Church >rand 5apidsE 7erdmans. i e a societal structure. and ministers to the community of $elievers in sacraments and worship. the gospel of -esus *hrist That gospel produces $oth fruit. over whether Cpreaching the gospelD or Csocial actionD has primacy. $ut the $earer of the message concerning that grace The message of grace in the gospel $rought to political life is not some =ind of Csocial gospelD which ma=es the %uestion of personal salvation in *hrist irrelevant 5ather. can never $e resolved The gospel is not to $e identified with the evangelistic message.

who has delegated his authority to human $eings to exercise on his $ehalf To refuse to $ring the !ord of >od to $ear on political life through the preaching.. a view not yet extinct "ot in terms of a church hierarchy that addresses what it perceives as political issues that trespass on the :urisdiction of the church. teaching and liturgy of the church is to seiAe control over the !ord and muAAle it. politics included. as *hrist commissioned it. and to usurp the sovereignty of >od who addresses us in our political lives through that !ord This then =eeps *hrist from what is rightfully his. and the tas= of the church is. to call all people $ac= to recognition of the universal <ordship of *hrist and to su$mit to his rule in everything The tas= of the church then is to call everyone to :oin us in su$mission to *hrist. to the very end of the age &@atthew 30E10432' This world dominion of *hrist is to $e distinguished from the exercise of ecclesiastical power. practices and ideals to $e scrutinised in the light of the !ord . as these authorities are ordained $y >od (n our prayers then we ac=nowledge >od as supreme governor of human life. as in @ediaeval *atholicism. #uidema suggests that in completing our tax forms we are directly confronted $y King -esus © Chris Gousmett 49 of 56 . and thus political concerns immediately enter into the liturgy of the church This tas= cannot $e carried out meaningfully if there is no sound conception as to what the responsi$ilities of those in authority are 8imilarly the in:unction of +aul in 5omans 1)E14/ to respect the government and pay taxes impinges directly on our *hristian discipleship. or for instance in reproving the government for its social welfare policies $ecause of the detrimental effects on the disadvantaged The political implications of the <ordship of *hrist demand that the church strives for the world dominion of its <ordE a mandate given $y *hrist himself when he said $efore his ascensionE . since this dominion of *hrist cannot $e delimited in any way. and teaching them to o$ey everything ( have commanded you .$raham KuyperBs most famous phrase was that CThere is not a single inch of which *hrist the <ord does not claim as his own D Thus the dominion of *hrist cannot $e excluded from any area of human life. $aptising them in the name of the Father and of the 8on and of the Holy 8pirit.. not to call them to su$mit to us in the church The tas= of the church is also to pray for those in authority. $ut $ecause it is politicised $y its mem$ers who will not allow their own political opinions.nd surely ( am with you always. and prevents them from carrying out their tas= of $ringing that word for political life to those outside the church The reason this happens is not $ecause the church is apolitical. namely the su$mission of his people to the !ord in political life.. as the power of the church most certainly is The >ospel of -esus *hrist calls us to integral involvement with all of life .he $criptures and political life How then should the 8criptures $e applied $y the church to political lifeL "ot in terms of a domineering church institution dictating its wishes to a su$ordinate state.ll authority in heaven and on earth has $een given to me Therefore go and ma=e disciples of all nations.

and maintenance of the life of the community of >odBs people through teaching.s private citiAens they may certainly act politically. who alone has supreme authority over political life (t is a result of church mem$ers ta=ing a profane political stance who do not want to $e exposed to the Truth concerning politics in the liturgy and teaching of the church . :ust policies with regard to every area of life in which the state can legitimately legislate. and the rights of *hrist in the *hurch. $eyond which it must $ehave un:ustly. are all part of the message of the gospel which the church institution legitimately $rings to the state However. discipline and love. su$:ect to the personal inclinations of the preacher. and therefore directly addresses political life as such The $earing of the 8criptures on political life is not an ar$itrary exercise.ny ac%uiescence to demands from such mem$ers to cease confronting their political convictions with the !ord of >od has at that point exchanged the <ordship of *hrist for the domination of his diso$edient disciples .s a result politics enters the church and controls the !ord of >od. there is still the pro$lem of how this is to $e done (s it right that the church hierarchy should haul the government into church and reprove them from the pulpit for their political failings. and it is the tas= of the preacher to ma=e that import plain and understanda$le to their audience Justice and the 0ord of God The =ingdom of >od is manifested in the state as righteousness in the administration of :ustice through the esta$lishment of human ordinances The administration of :ustice ought to ta=e place in the general interestE this is the supreme tas= of the state. since it is the characteristic responsi$ility of the state The need for :ust laws. pastoral care. and provide their own inherent criti%ue of humanistic and pagan concepts of :ustice ?y calling the state $ac= to its true tas= and proclaiming the genuine character of :ustice. to conduct organised worship. as well as in political life. as though there is the need for an artificial connection to $e made The political import of 8cripture is already present in the text. and the proper $oundaries of the stateBs action. this falls outside their competence For them to act politically as clergy is a species of clericalism. $ecause it is $eing untrue to its calling. appointed to proclaim the 8criptures and administer the sacraments. are denied to him The political tas= of the church institution is the proclamation of the 8criptures as !ord of >od to human life. a covenantal message that encompasses all that we do.and to $e :udged $y *hrist. :ust administration and courts. the church fulfils its tas= with relation to the state @ore than this it is not permitted to do ?ut the issue of :ustice pervades all of political life. the identification of the tas= of the church © Chris Gousmett 50 of 56 . and to this tas= the church must address its political message The 8criptures provide the only $asis for :ustice in human life. $ut as officials of the church institution. as was done not too long agoL 8hould the church use its voice in preaching to promote one or other political philosophyL @uch of the reflection on this issue is centred on the church institution and its appointed officials Fthe clergyG and their tas= in this regard ?ut is that the correct situationL ( $elieve not (t is not the tas= of the clergy to directly involve themselves in political action of this sort as cler"y .

with the wor= of the clergy. and the identification of the $ody of *hrist with the church institution and its tas= © Chris Gousmett 51 of 56 .

repenting.s these people live out their lives in every area. punishing. and showing how the revelation of >odBs re%uirements concerning :ustice are ignored. calling them on towards the goal he wishes © Chris Gousmett 52 of 56 . what the preacher must do is proclaim the message of 8cripture concerning :ustice in such a way that it can $e applied responsi$ly $y each person with respect to their individual responsi$ilities The alternative is to misuse 8cripture to point the finger at politicians and allow the congregation $efore us to feel :ustifia$ly self4righteous $ecause they are not li=e these tax4collectorsO (nstead the political message of 8cripture cuts to the heart of every individual who hears it and calls all of us to pursue :ustice and love mercy in our own lives regardless of whether or not we hold an appointed or elected political office The church is not the clergy. called to live out their lives in terms of our covenantal relationship with >od That relationship comes to fruition in whatever we do. in faith and repentance . for every single person However. will wor= itself out in politics to the extent that these people are involved in political life The message of 8cripture for political life is not a message of either praise or condemnation for elected politicians. to direct this message to some and not to all distorts the proclamation of 8cripture. $ut a message of life in *hrist. slipping. then we see the covenantal history of the people of >od. falling again and repenting once more. and those with political tas=s must learn how to express that citiAenship in their tas=s Concludin" remar2s The 8criptures spea= directly to political life.he tas2 of the institutional church The tas= of the institutional church is the proclamation of the whole message of 8cripture to its mem$ers. faltering. and the <ordship of *hrist finds its expression through the su$:ection of all of human life to his divine word and renewing grace The grace of >od $rings renewal and prosperity into human life not $y means of the church $ut directly as *hrist rules and directs all human=ind The clergy have the tas= of teaching and exhorting the people of >od. and through reading the 8criptures with eyes open. not as a source for theological axioms or devotional comfort. reproving. $lessing and cursing. prospering. whatever they are doing. helping them to understand the message of grace and applying it in their lives ?ut the wor= of the church is not to do that application on their $ehalf The people of >od must $e $rought to maturity so that they can profita$ly $ring the 8criptures to $ear on their own lives. not all people have the same involvement and same responsi$ilities in political life Therefore. the mem$ers of the $ody of *hrist. their living in terms of the covenant relationship with >od that encompasses all that we do. re$u=ing. those who live in o$edience to the covenant $etween >od and human=ind. striving in their own way to give expression to the call to do :ustice in their lives. we see the grace of >od at wor=. and not to have to depend on the clergy to do it for them The people of >od have to learn to act responsi$ly as citiAens of the =ingdom of >od in every area of life. that faith and repentance. political life included. as the need arises >od is in dynamic relationship with his people. which is a covenantal document for all >odBs people 5ather. $ut the people of >od. heeded or imperfectly followed (n all this.

editor +hiladelphiaE !estminster +ress. a light which can dispel the dar=ness in political life as well as in every other area of human endeavour . 196. all the people will $e righteous. and 8cripture is our covenant document as much as theirs ?y proclaiming this covenant. which provides also for our redemption. since it is only in this way that 8cripture addressed the nation of (srael. depending on how we respond to the covenantal relationship he has esta$lished with us. renewing and completing the creation he has made. and then. and ad:usting his approach to them according to their response 8ometimes he repents of the evil he had intended $ecause of human sin and in:ustice.6 -ohn T @c"eill C-ohn *alvin on *ivil >overnment D (nE Calvinism and the Political %rder >eorge < Hunt. sometimes he repents of the good and withdraws his $lessing ?ut at all times >od wor=s with us. that 8cripture can $e $rought to $ear with integrity on our lives. p 99 53 of 56 © Chris Gousmett . and the infant church. then we will see the relevance of the 8criptures to our daily lives (t is only as a covenantal history of >odBs redemptive acts.. and heirs together with the patriarchs and =ings. ever redeeming. the prophet says.creation to fulfil. in political life as much as any other area The =ings of the nations will enter -erusalem $ringing with them the wealth of their realms F(saiah 62G. so as to arrive one day at the full expression of the glory of >od. the lordship of *hrist the =ing over the whole of creation. mothers in (srael and sons of the prophets.6 ( contend to the contrary that in the thought of Kuyper and 1ooyeweerd we have such a *hristian political philosophy Our responsi$ility is to ma=e it =nown and through *hristian political involvement to $ring the light of *hrist to the nations. since in this way it does already address political life. and must $e proclaimed in that way in order to spea= on its own terms into our political life Only then will we truly see the =ingdom of >od rise up in our midst -ohn T @c"eill has made the comment that Cthere has $een in this century no ade%uate attempt on the part of the churches to confront the nations and the world with a *hristian political philosophy D. the apostles and women4witnesses to the resurrection. and they will possess the land forever ?y proclaiming the 8criptures as covenantal history. the new people of >od Our redemption stands in direct continuity with theirs. that is as the history of the covenant in which we are full partners. we can $ring that gospel message to $ear on political life without distorting or manipulating the 8criptures. in us and sometimes against us.

7rnest @ $aint in politics! the EClapham $ectF and the "ro*th of freedom <ondonE >eorge.o*C he $tate of Christian Political Reflection !ashingtonE University +ress of . 1962 ?ammel. 1900 Hopfl. 1909 Hilton. ! . 7dmund Fed G 0ar! &our Christian Aie*s 1ooyeweerd.. 1903 Howse. 1903 ?erg.merica.llen and Unwin.merican 7nterprise (nstitute. +eter < Q 5ichard -ohn "euhaus o empo*er the people! he role of mediatin" structures in public policy !ashington. 1909 Harper. 5o$ert ?ooth A . 19/1 © Chris Gousmett 54 of 56 . 1903 >i$$s. 19)0 *haplin. . 5oland H Christian attitudes to*ards *ar and peace! a historical survey and critical re/evaluation "ashvilleE . 1avid Dethodism and politics in . H he Christian idea of the $tate +hiladelphiaE +res$yterian and 5eformed. 1*E . @ichael Christian democracy in 0estern Europe 1=.$ingdon +ress. (ll E (I+. ?o$ Idols of our time 1owners >"raphy 8t *atharinesE +aideia. ?o$ A Christian Political %ption TorontoE !edge >oudAwaard. 1901 Hempton.onconformist Conscience! Chapel and Politics 1=>?/1@18 <ondonE >eorge . 19// ?ready. 7 Q * F 1 @oule Jesus and the politics of his day *am$ridgeE University +ress. . Q T 5 @alloch 0here Are 0e .iblio"raphy ?ainton.%/1@<5 <ondonE 5outledge and Kegan +aul F19.llen and Unwin.! En"land: before and after 0esley <ondonE Hodder and 8toughton.)ooye*eerd+s theory of public justice TorontoE (*8 *haplin.e* en"a"ement! evan"elical political thou"ht: 1@BB/1@>B >rand 5apidsE 7erdmans. 1 ! he . -ohn 1engerinc=. he Gospel and Politics! &ive Positions TorontoE (*8 he idea of justice in Christian perspective TorontoE !edge *louse. 19/3 Fogarty.ritish $ociety 8tanfordE 8tanford University +ress. Harro he Christian polity of John Calvin *am$ridgeE University +ress. @ar= Christians *ith secular po*er +hiladelphiaE Fortress +ress <aity 7xchange ?oo=s 8eries 1901 >oudAwaard. ?oyd he A"e of Atonement# he Influence of Evan"elicalism on $ocial and Economic hou"ht: 1>=</1=B< OxfordE *larendon +ress. ./G Fowler. 1909 ?e$$ington. 19/0 ?erger. F Ianden Abraham 'uyper# A .

5 Politics and the . 190) © Chris Gousmett 55 of 56 . 1909 <yon. 19/) (rving.1 Oxford University +ress @aier. !illiam 5 . 7d Calvinism and the political order +hiladelphiaE !estminster +ress. 19/6 @ouw. > ( T Politics and the churches in Great . Hans Revolution and Church! the early history of Christian democracy: 1>=@/1@?1 "otre 1ameE University of "otre 1ame +ress. @orris Prophets and mar2ets! the political economy of ancient Israel KluwerE ?oston.ssociation of *anada @arshall. 196. 19/9 @achen. 19/9 <angley. H 7 $criptural reli"ion and political tas2 TorontoE !edge 8chouls. @cKendree 5 he practice of political spirituality! episodes from the public career of Abraham 'uyper: 1=>@/1@1= -ordan 8tationE +aideia.iblical appraisal TorontoE !edge 8ider. 190) Hutchinson. +eter Insi"ht: authority and po*er! a . 5 7 @ he Christian democratic parties in 0estern Europe <ondonE >eorge .Hunt. 1909 (rving. >eorge <. @arshall. 196. 1903 5unner. 5 7 @ Christian democracy in &rance <ondonE >eorge .ritain 1=B@/1@. 1avid 'arl Dar6! A Christian appreciation of his life and thou"ht 8urrey HillsE . 5ichard -ohn C!hy wait for the =ingdomL The theonomist temptation D First Things @ay 1992.llen and Unwin. 19/6 @ouw. 1909 @ouw. +aul hine is the 2in"dom! a . -ames 1avison American Evan"elicalism! conservative reli"ion and the -uandary of modernity "ew ?runswic=E 5utgers University +ress. ! 8 -ohn Calvin! (is influence in the 0estern *orld >rand 5apidsE #ondervan. 1)431 5eid. 190) "euhaus.nAea.iblical )rama >rand 5apidsE 7erdmans. 5ichard Political Evan"elism >rand 5apidsE 7erdmans. 5onald Rich Christians in an A"e of (un"er <ondonE Hodder Q*een the times! the travail of the Protestant establishment: 1@??/1@B? "ew Hor=E *U+. + Q 7 Iander=loet &oundations of (uman Ri"hts *hristian <a$our . "yhoffE The Hague.iblical perspective on the nature of "overnment and politics today <ondonE @arshall @organ and 8cott. 19// 8ilver.llen and Unwin. 5ichard Called to holy *orldliness +hiladelphiaE Fortress +ress <aity 7xchange ?oo=s 8eries 1902 @ouw. Hunter. 5ichard 0hen the 2in"s come marchin" in! Isaiah and the ne* Jerusalem >rand 5apidsE 7erdmans.

. >ordon CThe principled pluralist position D CThe principled pluralist ma:or response D (nE God and politics! four vie*s on the transformation of civil "overnment >ary 8cott 8mith. -ohan 'arl Dar6! he roots of his thou"ht TorontoE !edge +u$lishing Foundation. IandeAande. 1901 8py=man./ he society of the future +hiladelphiaE +res$yterian and 5eformed. 1909 8tor=ey. 19/6 Ian 5iessen. * . ed +hillips$urg. "icholas Until Justice and peace embrace >rand 5apidsE 7erdmans. 190) Hoder. 1909 !olterstorff.nglican *hurch ?oo=centre. A Christian $ocial Perspective <eicesterE (I+ Ian 1er Hoeven. 19/3 © Chris Gousmett 56 of 56 .8=illen. -ohn Howard he Politics of Jesus >rand 5apidsE 7erdmans. -ames ! International politics and the demand for "lobal justice ?urlingtonE > 5 !elch. > Christians in the crisis! o*ards responsible citiGenship TorontoE . "-E +res$yterian and 5eformed. 190) !right. H 19.H 1ivin" as the people of God! he relevance of % Ethics <eicesterE (I+.