Roots of Western Culture

Kuyper had grasped that sphere sovereignty is a creational principle. And yet he still confused it with historically founded autonomy of parts in the body politic when he placed municipalities and provinces in his list of life spheres.

Differentiated life spheres such as the family, the school and economic enterprise can never be parts of the state.

The historicistic view has had an immense influence – it is important to avoid this absolutisation of the historical aspect of reality. One antidote is to expose the hidden ground motives that lie behind it.

From the historicist perspective the idea that there are principles rooted in the creation order is viewed as being undynamic and as not grasping the spirit of the age. The historicist view is more influential today than the scriptural view of history. But to find God’s ordinaces fo historical development our starting point must be the creation, fall and redemption ground motive.

There are (at least) two objections to this approach: the biblicist and the Barthian.

biblicism
The biblicist objection is that scriptural principles can come straight out the of the Bible – we have, for example, the ten commandments. Dooyeweerd answers this objection with a question: are all the laws for God’s creation order, such as laws that govern numerical and spatial relationships, physical and chemical phenomena also to be found in scripture? No, God has given us the task of discovering them.

barthianism
The Barthian responds: how can we know the original ordinances of creation? Sin has changed them so that now they are ordinances for sinful life.

Dooyeweerd asks: ‘Did God reveal himself as the creator so that we could brush this revelation aside?’ Creation should not be pushed to the background: Psalms, Job and Romans are all clear on the importance of creation.

Jesus himself uses creational ordinances for marriage in his discussion of divorce.

The fall has affected all of life but it has not as broad as creation; it does not alter the structures of reality of creation.

review questions
1. What is the difference between differentiated and undifferentiated states of society?
2. How does Dooyeweerd respond to the biblicist and Barthian objection?

study questions
1. How can we combat historicism today?
2. Does biblicism stifle cultural transformation?

Sphere sovereignty is common property in the Netherlands and it has become divorced from a Christian ground motive. In this section, Dooyeweerd looks at how this misunderstanding has arisen.

The nineteenth century historical school in Germany influenced the antirevolutionary political thought. The founders’ thought, despite being Lutheran, was dominated by historicism.

In Historicism:

• reality is reduced to the historical aspect

• reality is a product of ceaseless historical development of culture

• everything is subject to continual change

• is the denial that the individual is always remains subject to the law.

The Historical School denied the validity of general laws, but replaced them with a substitute ‘divine providence’.

Fredrich Julius Stahl (1802-1861)

Stahl was a Lutheran Jew and the founder of the antirevolutionary political party in Germany. He attempted to incorporate this Romantic view of history into a scriptural approach without realising that it was a Trojan horse for a pagan ground motive. His idea was that the ten commandments provided a universally valid norm, but a secondary norm was provided by this norm for historical development.

The Historical School accepted the fruit of the French Revolution. The result was an attempt to harmonise the autonomy of the life spheres with the idea of the state. The spheres had to accommodate themselves to the requirement of the state.

Guillame Groen van Prinsterer

Groen van Prinsterer was doing a similar thing to Stahl in the Netherlands. He looked for an idea of the state along historical-development lines. He was the first to use the term ‘souveriniteit in eigen sfeer (sovereignty within its own sphere), but he did not view it as a creational principle.

Both Stahl and Groen van Prinsterer thought that the state should not interfere with the internal life of the other spheres.

Abraham Kuyper

Kuyper was the first to see sphere sovereignty as a creational principle. His first conception, however, confused sphere sovereignty with municipal and provincial autonomy. The latter are not sovereign spheres but rather autonomous parts of the state.

Many were unsure of Kuyper’s contention that sphere sovereignty was a creational principle and an attitude of caution ensued as they maintained that the Bible contained no texts about sphere sovereignty.

review questions

1. How has historicism distorted the view of sphere sovereignty?

2. What was the misconception of sphere sovereignty Dooyeweerd was addressing?

3. What was the result of Kuyper confusing municipals and provincial autonomy with sphere sovereignty?

study questions

1. Outline how the concept of sphere sovereignty developed from Stahl to Kuyper.

2. Can the Bible be used to develop principles such as sphere sovereignty?

summary
Dooyeweerd again uses the image of a refracting prism.

Each of the aspects are investigated by modern special sciences – each science considers reality in only one aspect.

To investigate these sciences without the light of the knowledge of God means that one of these aspects becomes absolutised – everything is reduced to this one aspect. Tis idolisation of only one science results from a non-biblical ground motive taking hold of thinking. It leads to a false view of reality.

historicism
Historicism is the idolisation of the historical aspect of creation. Historicism knows no eternal values; all is part of a stream of historical development.

Historicism is a half-truth – all temporal things do have a historical element - that has been made a whole truth – all other aspects are reduced to it.

The scriptural ground motive frees our view of reality and we are able to see God’s creation in its great pluriformity and colourfulness; it prevents us from absolutising any one aspect and reducing the others.

Each aspect possesses a sovereign sphere or as Abraham Kuyper called it, sphere sovereignty.

Sphere sovereignty is a creational principle. The aspects of reality have:

• a mutual irreducibility
• an inner connection and
• an inseparable coherence

Take logic. It cannot be explained by the other aspects, it is sovereign in its own sphere and subject to its own laws. Nevertheless, it does not exist by itself, it is inseparable from the other aspects; eg we cannot think logically if we have a body that functions organically.

two types of structure
There are two types of structure within temporal reality: the structure of the different modal aspects and the concrete structure of reality as it reveals itself to us time.

We experience the structure of the modal aspects in their totality through everyday experience. We only focus on the distinct aspects in scientific thought. The concrete structure of reality shows itself in the structure of different individual totalities: things, events, acts and societal relationships, such as the family, the state, the church … .

sphere universality
The psychical aspect of reality has a core nucleus that is irreducible to any other aspect. However, there is an expression of internal coherence with the other aspects. See the table below:

Someone, as a result, of an apostate ground motive, might make ‘feeling’ the basic certainty of his or her life. Seeing that the aspects are reflected in the physical life he or she may declare that feeling is the origin of all other aspects; faith, for example, could be identified with the feeling of trust and certainty. Feeling becomes all – it has become an idol.

An antithesis is at work between the Christian religion and the service of an idol.

A key issue is how does a Christian ground motive affect pastoral and social action? It radically changes our view of the inner nature of the state and its relation to other spheres.

society and sphere sovereignty
Sphere sovereignty is a creational order and thus pertains to the second structure – the concrete – structure of reality. It applies to the societal forms – family, state, church, school, economic enterprise and so on.

A Christian ground motive also gives insight into the intrinsic nature, mutual relation and coherence of these spheres.

A form/ matter motive sees the state as a totalitarian community.

Sphere sovereignty guarantees each sphere an intrinsic nature and law of life; each sphere has its authority derived directly from God and not from another sphere or aspect.

review questions

1. What are the two types of structure?

2. Dooyeweerd in this section poses a number of key questions:
• What does the Christian ground motive have to do with the concrete needs of political and social action?
• What then is the significance of sphere sovereignty for human society?

How does Dooyeweerd answer these questions?

3. How has historicism distorted the view of sphere sovereignty?

study questions

1. Choose another of the modal aspects and examine how it is anticipated and retrocipated in the other modal aspects.

2. How do the different ground motives affect the view of the state?