Theological Studies

69 (2008)

SUBSIDIARITY AND SPHERE-SOVEREIGNTY:

A MATCH MADE IN . . . ?
KENT A. VAN TIL

The principle of subsidiarity has a parallel in the Dutch Calvinist

tradition of Abraham Kuyper. Seeking to create space for interme-
diate entities between the state and the individual, Kuyper developed
the idea of “sphere-sovereignty” to express this. While the two prin-
ciples are parallel, there are differences regarding the nature of each
sphere, their interrelationships, and the role of the institutional
church. Nevertheless, the combined strengths of these principles are
instructive for those seeking to witness to Christian faith in all areas
of contemporary, pluralistic societies.

CHRISTIAN SOCIAL ORDER has long occupied the

T HE QUEST FOR A
church. What should a Christian society look like? Is there such a
thing as a Christian society, or might there potentially be many Christian
societies? What is the role of the church, state, and other institutions in
society? Everyone from Diggers and Dominicans, to Cistercians and Cal-
vinists, has variously defined answers to these questions. To say that there
is variety in both definitions and practice hardly captures the wide range of
options that have grown within the church. Yet, amidst this diversity, two
significant traditions, the Roman Catholic and Dutch Calvinist, have con-
verged in surprising ways within the last century and a half.
While the theology of the Roman Catholic Church has always had a
social component, its official social teachings, so defined, are often dated
from Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum novarum of 1891. Leo believed that the
increasingly secular European states were pushing the church out of civil
society. Hoping to reassert the church’s authority and role, Leo addressed
the social issue of the laboring class of Europe. The second tradition, Dutch
Calvinism, has also reflected on issues of church, state, and secularization.
The teachings of this tradition are not formal teachings of the highest
church official, but theological reflections on issues of the day by its church

KENT A. VAN TIL holds a Ph.D. from Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wis-
consin, and is visiting assistant professor at Hope College, Holland, Michigan.
Specializing in Christian social ethics, he has recently published Less than Two
Dollars a Day: A Christian View of World Poverty and the Free Market (2007). In
progress is an article on a Christian view of poverty and morality for Ethikon, and
an introductory textbook on Christian ethics.
610
 SUBSIDIARITY AND SPHERE-SOVEREIGNTY 611

leaders. Abraham Kuyper (1837–1920), a leading theologian in this tradi-

tion and prime minister of the Netherlands, developed a social-theological
model he called “sphere sovereignty.”1
There are a number of reasons why these two traditions are parallel and
warrant further investigation. The origins of each lie in post-Enlightenment
Western Europe of the late 19th century. Both attempt to respond to the
political changes in the church/state/society relations of that period. By this
time, the medieval guilds had disappeared. In their place was the contrac-
tual agreement between corporations and labor. In this context of indus-
trialization, class conflict was a common characteristic of European society.
A watchword of the French Revolution, “no God, no master!” still reso-
nated in Europe. The revolts of 1848 were still living memories, and Marx’s
call, “Workers of the world to unite!” was well known and often heeded. It
seemed that the individual stood alone before the state, or industrial capi-
talist, with few intermediate bodies between. Religion was shoved into a
spiritual corner, and governmental elites expected the church’s silence or
complicity in social issues. In response to these conditions, both church
traditions were compelled to articulate new approaches to the social order.
The Catholic Church in many instances had been a state church that now
found itself pushed from its earlier prominence. On the other hand,
Kuyper’s church, Gereformerde Kerken in Nederland, seceded from the
national Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk in protest over state regulation of
ecclesiastical affairs.
Today, the conditions that led these traditions to develop social theolo-
gies have changed, but recent conflicts may have made resolution of issues
of church, state, and society more vital than ever. The question of how
religion can and should function in pluralistic societies arises in many hotly
debated political issues today: homosexual marriage, abortion, education
vouchers, etc. In other parts of the world, blood is spilling over the question
of whether a religion should direct the state. It thus seems imperative that
the church continue to develop approaches that honor the role of faith in
society, while recognizing the plurality of powers and voices within society.
By a “pluralistic” social model I mean an ordering of society in which
neither church, nor state, nor individual, nor marketplace sets the standard
or holds controlling authority within that society. Rather, a pluralistic so-
ciety permits diverse groups and institutions to operate within a common
societal framework.
In this article I hold the social theology of both Catholic and Reformed
Churches up to the other’s light, permitting each theology to illuminate

1
See Abraham Kuyper, Souvereiniteit in eigen kring: Rede ter inwijding van de
vrije Universiteit den 20sten October 1880 gehouden in het koor der nieuwe kerk te
Amsterdam (Amsterdam: J. H. Kruyt, 1880).
612 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

previously hidden features of the other. I focus on the lesser-known Kuy-

perian perspective, look back to the origins and development of the key
principle of each approach—namely, subsidiarity and sphere-sovereignty,
document some critiques of subsidiarity made by advocates of sphere sov-
ereignty,2 and make comparisons at a number of points. I conclude with
questions that have arisen as well as prospects for future collaboration. As
both subsidiarity and sphere sovereignty are living traditions, my survey
will necessarily trace movements, rather than capture moments. The fact
that they are living traditions, however, permits and perhaps demands that
they continue to shape the lives of their respective faith communities.

THE CATHOLIC TRADITION OF SUBSIDIARITY

According to The New Catholic Encyclopedia, “the principle of subsid-
iarity is broadly concerned with the limits of the right and duty of the public
authority to intervene in social and economic affairs.”3 It is a principle that
cuts in two directions. From the bottom up, so to speak, it insists that
individuals and lesser communities within society are responsible for their
own appropriate functions and that larger institutions such as the state
must not interfere with or absorb the lesser.4 From the top down, however,
subsidiarity acknowledges that higher authorities such as the state may
intervene among lower in order to “encourage, stimulate, regulate supple-
ment and complement” them, that is, render subsiduum or aid.5 The prin-
ciple of subsidiarity thus does not permit all aspects of society to be ab-
sorbed into the state but does encourage an active state within society.
Subsidiarity is named as such and articulated by Pius XI in 1931 when he
declares in Quadragesimo anno:
It is an injustice and . . . a disturbance of right order to transfer to the larger and
higher collectivity functions which can be performed and provided for by lesser and
subordinate bodies. Inasmuch as every social activity should, by its very nature,
prove a help [subsiduum] to members of the body social, it should never destroy or
absorb them. The state should leave to other bodies the care and expediting of
matters of lesser moment. . . . The more faithfully the principle of subsidiarity is
followed and a hierarchical order prevails among the various organizations, the
more excellent will be the authority and efficiency of society. (nos. 79–80)6

2
I find no specific critiques in the other direction—of sphere sovereignty by
Catholic subsidiarists.
3
R. E. Mulcahy and T. Massaro, “Subsidiarity,” The New Catholic Encyclopedia,
2nd ed. 567.
4
Pius XI, Quadragesimo anno nos. 79, 80.
5
John XXIII, Mater et magistra no. 53.
6
Throughout, I use the translations of papal documents found in David J.
O’Brien and Thomas A. Shannon, ed., Catholic Social Thought: The Documentary
Heritage (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis 1992).
 SUBSIDIARITY AND SPHERE-SOVEREIGNTY 613

A number of comments are appropriate regarding the context for and

purpose of this teaching. First, Pius wanted to reiterate and extend the
teaching on social and economic issues initiated by his predecessor Leo. At
a time when Mussolini’s fascist regime pressured Pius and the church to
retreat to “spiritual” matters, Pius reasserted the importance and legiti-
macy of the church’s social role.7 Second, Pius asserted that spiritual re-
newal itself is a necessary condition for social reform. As Christine Firer-
Hinze comments, “If the evils besetting modern society are to be cured,
and genuine peace—which encompasses both justice and charity—
attained, God’s reign must be restored to the heart of each person and to
the heart of familial, political, and economic life.”8 Pius was not content to
“let the church be the church,” as ethicist Stanley Hauerwas seems to
suggest. Instead, he wished to transform diverse structures of the social
order in such a way that each order of public life would be transformed
both materially and spiritually. With this articulation in Quadragesimo
anno, subsidiarity becomes a fundamental tenet of Catholic social teaching.
Long before this clear enunciation of the principle, however, one can
find foundations for the principle of subsidiarity in the church. Franz Muel-
ler finds such precursors in the writings in Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theod-
oret, and Augustine that safeguard the autonomy of smaller groups and
individuals within the greater organism of society. Mueller observes that
these Fathers “devoted detailed studies to this analogy: man is created and
destined for social life; in human communities there is need for authority
and differentiation; the ‘members’ must, as in the case of the natural body,
have different functions, rights and duties; the equal and the unequal must
join in God-intended harmony and order.”9 John Kelly traces this path as
it continues through Aquinas. Following Aristotle, Thomas held that all
things have an immanent purpose that was divinely implanted. For Thom-
as, “God not only causes creatures to be. He causes them to be in the
specific ways in which they exist and orders them to their specific goals.”10
These specific goals exist at different levels. Human creatures, for example,
have goals in common with other creatures—self preservation; with ani-

7
See also Paul Misner, “Catholic Labor and Catholic Action: The Italian Context
of Quadragesimo Anno,” Catholic Historical Review 90 (2004) 650–74.
8
Christine Firer-Hinze, “Commentary on Quadragesimo anno,” in Modern
Catholic Social Teaching: Commentaries & Interpretations, ed. Kenneth R. Himes et
al. (Washington: Georgetown University, 2005) 151–74, at 153.
9
Franz H. Mueller, “The Principle of Subsidiarity in the Christian Tradition,”
American Catholic Sociological Review 4 (1943) 144–57, at 145.
10
John E. Kelly, “The Influence of Aquinas’ Natural Law Theory on the Prin-
ciple of ‘Corporatism’ in the Thought of Leo XIII and Pius XI,” in Things Old and
New: Catholic Social Teaching Revisited, ed. Francis P. McHugh and Samuel M.
Natale (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1993) 104–43, at 108.
614 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

mals—sex and food; and with other rational beings—the search for truth
and community. These various levels of goals exist in subsidiary relation-
ship to one another; the lower levels of human society are taken up within
the higher. Mueller says, “St. Thomas states that una congregatio vel com-
munitas includit aliam, i.e., one social body (‘congregation’) or community
includes another, naturally smaller one, as in a system of concentric circles.
This applies to both secular and sacred association.”11 This concentric ring
of lesser societies grows naturally from one to the next, each building upon
or supporting the other. Thomas used the example of a family growing to
a village, and then to a city and a principality.12 When functioning harmo-
niously, this ordering of society permits each person to fill his or her
particular goals at appropriate levels. This set of relationships is discernible
via the natural law. We see, then, that subsidiarity is not a novelty with
Quadragesimo anno but has roots in the Fathers and especially in the
natural law tradition of Aquinas.
Though the principle of subsidiarity has thus been inchoately present
throughout the church’s history, it is widely conceded that Bishop Wilhelm
Emmanuel von Ketteler of Mainz brought this idea forward into modern
Catholic social teaching in the 1850’s.13 William Hogan observes:
Ketteler pointed back to the Middle Ages when the autonomy of spontaneously
formed social groups, such as towns, guilds, and religious associations, were not
mere creatures of the state, but were real entities anterior to the state. Bishop
Ketteler taught 19th-century clerics and laymen that “the state had the duty of
furnishing by means of legislation the necessary assistance to the working class in
organizing a corporative structure in which the new corporations would enjoy
autonomy within their respective spheres.”14
It is likely due to Ketteler’s influence on Leo XIII that we find the
concept of subsidiarity seminally present in Rerum novarum, where Leo
writes, “The law must not undertake more, nor go further than is required
for the remedy of the evil or the removal of the danger” (no. 29). Leo
XIII’s Immortale Dei (1885) also suggests the principle of subsidiarity—for
example: “Even in physical things, albeit of a lower order, the Almighty has
so combined the forces and springs of nature with tempered action and

11
Mueller, “Principle of Subsidiarity” 147. The citation from Aquinas is In IV.
Sent. d. 25, q. 3, a. 2, q. 3, sol. 3.
12
Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae 3, q. 8, q. 1, ad 2.
13
See Paul Misner, Social Catholicism in Europe: From the Onset of Industrial-
ization to the First World War (New York: Crossroad, 1991).
14
William E. Hogan, The Development of William Emmanuel von Ketteler’s
Interpretation of the Social Problem (Washington: Catholic University of America,
1946) 80–83. Cited in Kelly, “Influence of Aquinas’ Natural Law Theory” 119. See
also Marvin Krier Mich, Catholic Social Teaching and Movements (Mystic, Conn.:
Twenty-Third, 2001) chap. 1.
 SUBSIDIARITY AND SPHERE-SOVEREIGNTY 615

wondrous harmony that no one of them clashes with any other, and all of
them most fitly and aptly work together for the great purpose of the uni-
verse” (no. 14).
Yet, as noted above, the definitive statement employing and describing
the principle of subsidiarity in Catholic social teaching was written by
Oswald von Nell-Breuning and promulgated by Pius XI as Quadragesimo
anno. There Pius responded to the conditions that European and American
believers faced during the Industrial Revolution and the Depression. While
addressing economic concerns in detail, the real bedrock assumption be-
hind Quadragesimo anno is anthropological.15 The whole person must be
able to pursue his or her goals within society, and these certainly included
the economic aspect of life. Speaking of Quadragesimo anno, Thomas
Kohler notes:
Since spirit and body are co-principles in the constitution of the person, no such
distinction (that the church’s place in society is confined to the spiritual realm) can
be made. The temporal and spiritual have a mutually conditioning effect on the
person, who exists as an inseparable whole. Consequently, everything that touches
upon the well-being of the person is of interest to the church. . . . Its function is not
to govern but to advise and offer commentary on the arrangements by which we
order our lives.”16
This was Pius’s goal for subsidiarity—the full development of the human
person within a system in which the person can flourish. He believed that,
due to the Industrial Revolution and the Depression, these purposes of
human existence had been abrogated by an economic system that pitted
employee against industrialist. He thus proposed a “corporatist” solution
that would include intermediary associations that would enable people to
fulfill their various goals. These associations, largely trade-related groups,
would have semiautonomous status vis-á-vis the state.17
The principle reappears in Mater et magistra (1961) and is again applied
to economic matters. Here, Pope John XXIII shows his desire to protect
individuals against interference by higher collective groups, but he also
insists on the need for larger groups to support the lesser. He argues that,
in economics, lower and smaller entities such as individual men or firms are

15
“The encyclical’s core concern, however, is with the sorts of social institutions
that are most conducive to the full development of the human personality. In
a world increasingly dominated by large and often state-controlled institutions,
the encyclical seeks to carve out the grounds for authentic individual self-
determination” (Thomas C. Kohler, “In Praise of Little Platoons: Quadragesimo
Anno (1931),” in Building the Free Society: Democracy, Capitalism, and Catholic
Social Teaching, ed. George Weigel and Robert Royal [Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Eerdmans, 1993] 32).
16
Ibid. 41.
17
Quadragesimo anno nos. 81–95.
616 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

the proper origin of business ventures.18 Nevertheless, greater corporate

entities must increase the output of goods produced and see to it that they
are used for the common good. John XXIII explains this relationship with
a reference to subsidiarity. “This intervention of public authorities that
encourages, stimulates, regulates, supplements and complements is based
on the principle of subsidiarity as set forth by Pius XI in his encyclical
Quadragesimo Anno”19 (he then quotes the passage from Quadragesimo
anno nos. 79, 80). Later, without mentioning subsidiarity by name, John
XXIII recognizes the increasing complexity of social life and expresses his
wish that all social organizations contribute to the common good. The
greater public authorities should understand the common good and direct
the intermediate and smaller social groups toward it. Individual members
of society can then be encouraged and enabled to “achieve their own
perfection,” as they participate in larger social groups.20
When addressing the issue of poverty in less developed nations, John
XXIII urges that those in authority help the poor to help themselves. He
here combines the principle of “solidarity” with that of subsidiarity. Given
our solidarity with others of the human race, he argues, we owe them our
help as fellow members of the human family. Expressions of this solidarity,
however, are to be formulated from the bottom of the subsidiarity pyra-
mid, with individuals helping first themselves and then their nearby com-
munities. The pope writes:
Hence, those also who rely on their own resources and initiative should contribute
as best they can to the equitable adjustment of economic life in their own commu-
nity. Nay, more, those in authority should favor and help private enterprise in
accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, in order to allow private citizens
themselves to accomplish as much as is feasible.21
In Pacem in terris (1963) John XXIII applies the principle of subsidiarity to
the international community, urging that international relations also be
guided by the principle of subsidiarity. By this he means that, as national
governments direct smaller organizations within their nation toward the
common good, so too should international bodies direct national govern-
ments toward the common good of people worldwide.22 John XXIII goes
on to say that he does not wish to supplant the responsibilities of individual
national authorities but judges that only a worldwide authority can create
the conditions in which individual nations can prosper and pursue their
true common good.

18
Mater et magistra no. 51.
19
Ibid. no. 53.
20
Ibid. no. 65.
21
Ibid. no. 152.
22
Pacem in terris no. 140.
 SUBSIDIARITY AND SPHERE-SOVEREIGNTY 617

In the 1980s the U.S. Catholic bishops applied the principle of subsid-
iarity to both the content and the production of church social teachings
when they published The Challenge of Peace and Economic Justice for All.
In preparing these statements, the bishops followed the principle of sub-
sidiarity by including listening and working sessions within a number of
dioceses and congregations. The content also reflected significant influence
of Quadragesimo anno and later reflections on subsidiarity. For example,
Economic Justice for All states:

Catholic social teaching calls for respect for the full richness of social life. The need
for vital contributions from different human associations—ranging in size from the
family to government—has been classically expressed in Catholic social teaching in
the “principle of subsidiarity” [quoting Quadragesimo anno]. This principle guar-
antees institutional pluralism. It provides space for freedom, initiative, and creativ-
ity on the part of many social agents. At the same time, it insists that all these agents
should work in ways that help build up the social body. Therefore, in all their
activities these groups should be working in ways that express their distinctive
capacities for action that help meet human needs, and that make true contributions
to the common good of the human community. (Nos. 99–100)

Later in the document, the bishops specifically name intermediate struc-

tures such as families, neighborhoods, and community and civic associa-
tions that link individuals to their societies. All together contribute to the
creation of the common good (no. 308). In light of their understanding of
subsidiarity, the bishops also express regret that there is no international
organization with the authority to promote economic justice at the inter-
national level (no. 323).
In 1991, on the 100th anniversary of Rerum novarum, John Paul II issued
his encyclical Centesimus annus on economic justice, applying the doctrine
of subsidiarity in a way that both strengthens the role of the individual and
establishes the limits and responsibilities of state action. Emphasizing the
creativity and responsibility that each individual person has, the pope
writes:

The role of disciplined and creative human work and, as an essential part of that
work, initiative and entrepreneurial ability becomes increasingly evident and deci-
sive. . . . Indeed, besides the earth, man’s principal resource is man himself. . . . It is
his disciplined work in close collaboration with others that makes possible the
creation of ever more extensive working communities which can be relied upon to
transform man’s natural and human environments (no. 32).

Turning toward global responsibilities and connections, John Paul II

emphasizes that we are all part of one human family, and insists that we
cannot be indifferent to the plight of any family members. He cites biblical
examples such as Cain’s question about being his brother’s keeper, the
parable of the Good Samaritan and the judgment scene in Matthew 25 to
618 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

show that our common human nature demands acts of mercy and justice
toward others.
John Paul II also clarifies the role of the state in four ways. First, stronger
nations must provide opportunities for smaller ones in the international
arena, including its economic life (no. 35). Second, the state may not be-
come totalitarian, absorbing many of the functions of the intermediary
groups (nos. 13, 45). Third, the state must step in to fulfill crucial roles
when other social sectors are not equal to the task at hand. This type of
state action, however, must occur on an ad hoc basis, and not be permitted
to take over the roles of intermediate groups (no. 48). Finally, while con-
stantly vigilant to promote the common good, the state is not responsible
for all goods. Smaller groups such as individuals, families, and businesses
are prior to the state and responsible for the good of their own sector of
social life (no. 11).
The way the church viewed its own social teaching has also undergone
considerable development. In Rerum novarum the papacy makes some
rather extravagant claims for itself,23 which Nell-Breuning described as
“exceedingly arrogant.”24 By the time John Paul II celebrates the 100th
anniversary of Rerum novarum, however, the attitude has become far more
modest. He views the social teaching of the church as a “treasure that has
been passed down” and seeks to mine that treasure for the betterment of
church and society (no. 3).
John Paul II extended and clarified the social theology begun in the late
19th century. Commenting on the advantages of subsidiarity, so articulated,
in contemporary pluralistic societies, Brian Stiltner notes:
The plurality of associations is a consequence of human finitude and a guard against
hubris. In sum, pluralism is central to the common good because different commu-
nities center on the pursuit of different components of the complex human good;
because institutional diversity facilitates extensive participation in social life [a
strong element of the Catholic component of the good society is, after all, justice as
participation]; and because no one association can claim to be a perfect commu-
nity.25

In the Catholic Church’s teachings on subsidiarity, I find two important

themes. The first is that of “greater and lesser.” It emphasizes a hierarchi-
cal principle in which greater associations support the lesser and permits
lesser associations to accomplish smaller tasks. As the principle develops

23
See Rerum novarum no. 16, for example.
24
Cited in Mich, Catholic Social Teaching 23.
25
Brian Stiltner, Religion and the Common Good: Catholic Contributions to
Building Community in a Liberal Society (Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield,
1999) 178. Cited by John A. Coleman, S.J., “The Future of Catholic Social
Thought,” in Modern Catholic Social Teaching 522–44, at 528.
 SUBSIDIARITY AND SPHERE-SOVEREIGNTY 619

from Mater et magistra onward, the church clarifies the roles that greater
authorities should play in the lives of the lesser, “encouraging, stimulating,
regulating, supplementing and complementing” (Mater et magistra no. 51).
In Economic Justice for All, the types and nature of the associations them-
selves are expanded. Not only are greater institutions such as church and
state mentioned, but also explicit reference is made to intermediary groups
such as “families, neighborhoods, church congregations, community orga-
nizations, civic and business associations, public interest and advocacy
groups, community development corporations, and many other bodies.”26
The state is the regulator and aid of the smaller groups, and each smaller
group has its own area of responsibility. This theme places associations in
order by size and relates greater size with greater authority.
At the same time, I hear a second theme that speaks more of teloi.
Following Aquinas, the church argues that each creature has its own di-
vinely appointed reason for existence. The good for that creature is that it
fulfills its own telos. Given the differences among creatures and people,
there must be a wide range of teloi. Even within each person, there are
various teloi. Subsidiarity encourages each distinct being, and perhaps each
intermediate institution, to achieve its appropriate end. When each part
does so, it contributes to the good of the whole or the common good. Thus,
while the vertical and hierarchical viewpoint of subsidiarity plays the
melody, this horizontal element functions as its counterpoint. The entire
subsiduum is geared to the common good, as each individual or group
achieves its own good within the good of the whole. The picture in the
principle of subsidiarity is thus one of complementary associations of vary-
ing sizes working together in solidarity for the common good. It is this
goal—the common good—that gives subsidiarity its focus.

ABRAHAM KUYPER AND SPHERE SOVEREIGNTY

Abraham Kuyper (1837–1920) was a theologian, an orator, the editor
and founder of a daily newspaper and a church weekly, the founder and
president of a university, member of parliament, prime minister of the
Netherlands (1901–1905), and father of eight.27 In his lifetime, he shaped

26
U.S. Catholic Bishops, Economic Justice for All no. 308.
27
Numerous works have appeared on Kuyper’s life. The classic biography is by
P. Kasteel, Abraham Kuyper (Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1938). Good recent works in
English include Peter S. Heslam, Creating a Christian Worldview: Abraham
Kuyper’s “Lectures on Calvinism” (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998) and
John Bolt, A Free Church A Holy Nation (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001).
A review of recent literature on Kuyper can be found in James D. Bratt, “In the
Shadow of Mt. Kuyper: A Survey of the Field,” Calvin Theological Journal 31
(1996) 51–66.
620 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

the nation of Holland, and since his death, his writings have continued to
wield influence in the Netherlands and other countries influenced by the
Reformed tradition. As a scholar Kuyper developed the theory of “sphere
sovereignty,” and as a politician he attempted to put it into practice in
approximate concurrence with the papacy of Leo XIII. Of course, Kuyper
was not speaking and writing as a prince of the church; thus his work on
“sphere sovereignty” does not have the official status that subsidiarity
does. Nevertheless, his writings have created their own tradition in Chris-
tian social theology.
In Kuyper’s thought and practice, Christian faith, economic theory, and
political policy must be consciously interrelated. Similar to Leo XIII,
Kuyper would not permit the “religious” to be sidelined to a spiritual
realm. For him, the spiritual and the social must be of a piece. Princeton
ethicist Max Stackhouse notes how Kuyper’s approach integrates society,
individuals, and Christian morality.
[Kuyper] held that it is a serious error to say that Christianity has, or should have,
no implications for the organization of the common life or that it pertains only to
spiritual yearnings seated in the heart or expressed in the privacy of the prayer
group; or that society is best ordered by a secular, pragmatic politics that avoids
religions wherever possible. On the contrary, the well-being of the soul, the char-
acter of local communities, the fabric of the society at large, and the fate of civili-
zation are intimately related and cannot be separated from theological and moral
issues.28
Before delving into Kuyper’s theological and political theory I must
briefly consider the context in which Kuyper’s thinking grew. Kuyper was
the son of a Calvinist pastor but migrated intellectually into Ritschlian
liberalism,29 which was then predominant in northern Europe, while pur-
suing his doctorate in theology at Leyden. He went on to pastor a rural
congregation and, while serving a church in Beesd, was “converted” by his
peasant parishioners to a more orthodox form of Calvinism.30 Throughout
his career as both a theologian and a politician, Kuyper would navigate
between the poles of his more liberal teachers and his more conservative
church members. He found the theology of the former, at day’s end, to be

28
Max Stackhouse, preface to Religion, Pluralism, and Public Life: Abraham
Kuyper’s Legacy for the Twenty-First Century, ed. Luis Lugo (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Eerdmans, 2000) xi–xviii, at xiii.
29
Albrecht Ritschl (1822–1889) was perhaps at the pinnacle of the German
liberal Protestant tradition. His use of historical-critical methods led him to have
little faith in the historical and metaphysical claims of traditional orthodoxy.
30
James Bratt recounts this in “Abraham Kuyper: His World and Work,” in
Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, ed. James D. Bratt (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Eerdmans, 1998) 1–16. This change occurred for Kuyper in 1863–1867.
 SUBSIDIARITY AND SPHERE-SOVEREIGNTY 621

groundless, and the social policy of the latter fruitless. He searched for a
pathway that would be faithful to his now orthodox faith and yet effective
in the advanced and pluralistic society of the Netherlands. His career in
both politics and theology, therefore, moved between these positions,
sometimes chastening one or the other, and sometimes forming alliances
with them. Interestingly, he did form political alliances with the Dutch
Catholics, who shared many similar concerns and inclinations. In fact, his
ascendancy to prime ministry of the Netherlands would not have occurred
without them.31
Like other intellectuals within the broader European community in this
period, Kuyper’s social and political theories correspond to his nation’s
situation and ambitions. In very broad terms, two routes predominated in
late 19th-century Europe. The first was an autonomous individualism en-
suing from the French Revolution. This polity asserted absolute rights for
the individual and rejected any interference from other powers not autho-
rized by the individual—especially the church and the monarchy. The other
option was a unifying German idealism. In this polity, the nation was seen
as one spiritual and racial unity that was then expressed in a form of state
socialism. The first (French) option Kuyper called “Popular Sovereignty”
and the second (German) option he labeled “State Sovereignty.”32 He
rejected both.
In rejecting the Germanic state socialist option, Kuyper (in a mix of
metaphors) wrote: “The state may never become an octopus, which stifles
the whole of life. It must occupy its own place, on its own root, among all
the other trees of the forest, and thus it has to honor and maintain every
form of life which grows independently in its own sacred autonomy.”33
James Skillen, a political theorist in the Kuyperian tradition, describes
Kuyper’s critique of state socialism:

Kuyper used the term “organic” together with the idea of diverse spheres of society,
to affirm the social character of human life, with its built-in obligations of mutual
accountability, trust and service. Kuyper’s critique of socialism, in both its social
democratic and state socialist forms, warns of the danger of reducing society to the
state or the state to society. The organic character of society can be truly healthy
and just only when its real diversity is preserved.34

31
See Bolt, A Free Church, A Holy Nation for both a depiction of Kuyper’s
political thought and practice an attempt to put Kuyper’s thinking in dialogue with
contemporary Evangelical public theology.
32
Abraham Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans,
1931) 78–109.
33
Ibid. 96.
34
James Skillen, introduction to Abraham Kuyper, The Problem of Poverty,
trans., ed., and intro. James Skillen (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1991) 21. See also
622 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

For Kuyper, the state is not the totality of society, nor is it the final power
in society. Instead, it is the regulative institution within society that respects
and adjudicates among the roles and authorities of other parts of the or-
ganism. David H. McIlroy finds this specification regarding the roles of the
state to be the chief contribution of sphere-sovereignty. He notes that for
Kuyper “the state has a threefold role: (1) the recognition of the sovereign
spheres, (2) support of the sovereign spheres, and (3) resolution of conflict
between the sovereign spheres.”35 Kuyper also rejected popular sover-
eignty, declaring:
In the Christian religion, authority and freedom are bound together by the deeper
principle that everything in creation is subject to God. The French Revolution
threw out the majesty of the Lord in order to construct an artificial authority based
on individual free will. . . . The Christian religion seeks personal human dignity in
the social relationships of an organically integrated society. The French Revolution
disturbed that organic tissue, broke those social bonds, and left nothing but the
monotonous, self-seeking individual asserting his own self-sufficiency.36

For Kuyper, popular sovereignty—“no God, no master!” meant that the

human person asserted his or her own self-sufficiency, and that the social
good was thus merely a composite of each individual’s good, never a com-
mon good that could reach beyond the individual.
In lieu of either popular sovereignty or state sovereignty, Kuyper pro-
posed his model of “sphere sovereignty” in 1880.37 Significantly, he made
this proposal in his speech at the inauguration of the Free University of
Amsterdam, a university that Kuyper expressly founded to be “free” from
both ecclesiastical and civil control. Using the Calvinist doctrine of Com-
mon Grace, which holds that God shows his goodness in all of creation,
Kuyper asserted that all social institutions and intellectual pursuits are
divinely ordained. There is a divine order in all spheres of life. God’s grace
and thoughts are to be found not only in the salvific work of Christ but also
in all aspects of creation:
If thinking is first in God, and if everything created is considered to be only the
outflowing of God’s thought so that all things have come into existence by the
Logos—i.e., by divine reason or, better, by the Word—yet still have their own
being, then God’s thinking must be contained in all things. There is nothing in the

James Skillen and Rockne McCarthy, ed., Political Order and the Plural Structure
of Society (Atlanta: Scholars, 1991).
35
David H. McIlroy, “Subsidiarity and Sphere Sovereignty: Christian Reflections
on the Size, Shape, and Scope of Government,” Journal of Church and State 45
(2003) 754.
36
Kuyper, Problem of Poverty 43–44.
37
Abraham Kuyper, “Sphere Sovereignty,” in Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial
Reader 461–90.
 SUBSIDIARITY AND SPHERE-SOVEREIGNTY 623

whole creation that is not the expression, the embodiment, the revelation of a
thought of God.38
Each sphere of life thus reflects the presence of the Word of God and is
directly responsible to God for its being and its continued existence. Each
sphere was created by that Word and forms part of the continuously de-
veloping order of creation. The legitimacy and role of each sphere is thus
not derived from either state or church, but directly from God, whose
creative initiative brought it into being and sustains it. “Thinking God’s
thoughts after him” then becomes the task not only of the theologian but
also of every believer in every sphere of life. Writing of these spheres,
Kuyper is nearly grandiloquent:
There are in life as many spheres as there are constellations in the sky and the
circumference of each has been drawn on a fixed radius from the center of a unique
principle, namely, the apostolic injunction hekastos en toi idioi tagmati [“each in its
own order”: 1 Cor. 15:23]. Just as we speak of a “moral world,” a “scientific world,”
a “business world,” the “world of art,” so we can more properly speak of a “sphere”
of morality, of the family, of social life, each with its own domain. And because each
comprises its own domain, each has its own Sovereign within its bounds.39
Explicating this concept of sphere sovereignty, reformed theologian
Gordon Spykman writes: “Each sphere has its own identity, its own unique
task, its own God-given prerogatives. On each, God has conferred its own
peculiar right of existence and reason for existence.”40 Reformed philoso-
pher and Fuller Seminary President Richard Mouw elaborates on “sphere
sovereignty”:
Kuyper is not merely interested in strengthening mediating structures; he also
wants to understand how these so-called mediating structures are themselves or-
ganizational manifestations of more basic spheres of interaction. For him, it is
important to see the ways in which, say, familial relations are very different from
ecclesial ones, or how artistic activity differs from scientific investiga-
tion. . . . Whether it is good to have Rotary Clubs and Parent Teacher Associations
is not as important a question for Kuyper as whether art and religion and business
and family life are granted their allotted place in the God-ordained scheme of
things.41
All things are allotted their particular spaces in Kuyper’s sociopolitical
model, and the whole “scheme of things” is divinely ordered. There are not

38
Kuyper, “Common Grace in Science,” in ibid. 443.
39
Kuyper, “Sphere Sovereignty,” in ibid. 461–90, at 467. Kuyper’s exegesis of this
text is a bit of a stretch, but I cite him on this point to show his understanding of
what he called the “creation order.”
40
Gordon Spykman, “Sphere Sovereignty in Calvin and the Calvinist Tradition,”
in Exploring the Heritage of John Calvin, ed. David Holwerda (Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Baker, 1976) 167.
41
Richard Mouw, “Some Reflections on Sphere Sovereignty,” in Religion, Plu-
ralism, and Public Life 87–109, at 91.
624 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

“spiritual” spheres and “secular” spheres. Rather, all human efforts to

develop culture are at once both spiritual and natural.
In a sentence Kuyperians are fond of quoting, Kuyper says: “No single
piece of our mental world is to be hermetically sealed off from the rest, and
there is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over
which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: ‘Mine!’”42 For
Kuyper, each sphere of life has its own legitimacy and its own nature, and
participants in each sphere daily respond to Christ’s claim as its Lord in
either belief or unbelief. Thus no sphere is more spiritual or noble than any
other. Whether it is in family life, economic life, churchly life, sports, or any
other sphere, each person can fulfill the “cultural mandate” to “till the
earth and keep it” (Gen 2:15). Human beings, as God’s image-bearers, use
their unique creative gifts to work within different spheres, in accordance
with their talents and with respect to the nature of each particular sphere.
Society’s accumulation of these labors then results in diverse human cul-
tures.43 Thus human work, when properly directed, has positive social and
cultural results. It also has profound religious goals—the glorification of
God and service to neighbor.
The task of believers in all walks of life, then, is to exercise their calling
within their chosen sphere(s) of work. It may well be that individuals do
participate in multiple spheres of life. Using an example from art history,
James Bratt writes:
Kuyper would shudder at both the subject and style of Picasso’s definitively mod-
ernist Les Demoiselles d’Avignon, but he would envision their more seemly coun-
terpart, the Calvinist matron, as simultaneously a family member, reader, believer,
consumer, patriot, teacher—each role having its own independent integrity, all
cohering together in her subjective being.44
At the center of her subjective being would be her faith, since all of life is
an outworking of one’s basic religious commitment. As Skillen comments,
“For Kuyper, religion is not one thing among many that autonomous
people choose to do; it is, rather, the direction that human life takes as
people give themselves over to the gripping power of either the true God
or false gods.”45 All of life thus ultimately becomes service either to God
or to false gods.

42
Kuyper, “Sphere Sovereignty” 488.
43
As Reformed theologian (and my uncle) Henry Van Til stated: “Culture, then,
is any and all human effort and labor expended upon the cosmos, to unearth its
treasures and its riches and bring them into the service of man for the enrichment
of human existence unto the glory of God” (Henry Van Til, The Calvinistic Concept
of Culture [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1959, 2001] 29–30).
44
James D. Bratt, “Abraham Kuyper: Puritan, Victorian, Modern,” in Religion,
Pluralism, and Public Life 3–21, at 14.
45
Skillen, introduction to Problem of Poverty 17; emphasis added.
 SUBSIDIARITY AND SPHERE-SOVEREIGNTY 625

Kuyper grounds his proposal for the inviolable legitimacy of each sphere,
as well as the legitimacy of state power, by tying both to his belief in the
absolute sovereignty of God:
From this one source, in God, sovereignty in the individual sphere, in the family and
in every social circle, is just as directly derived as the supremacy of State authority.
These two must therefore come to an understanding, and both have the same
sacred obligation to maintain their God-given sovereign authority and to make it
subservient to the majesty of God.46
The church, for Kuyper, shapes the basic faith convictions of the be-
liever, which in turn serve as guide for the other spheres of life. Faith, for
Kuyper, is not only the acceptance of a set of revealed truths but also the
foundation upon which a worldview is constructed. He does not contrast a
realm of faith with a realm of reason but compares different “faiths” to one
another, or contrasts faith with unbelief. For Kuyper, “faith is the function
of the soul by which it obtains certainty.”47 It is the ground of certainty that
makes all other knowing possible. The role of the church is therefore
crucial. The church elucidates and strengthens this faith, which serves as
the believer’s basis for determining the direction of his or her life in other
spheres.48
As noted above, the believer could simultaneously be a member of a
church, a citizen of the state, and a participant in any number of social
spheres. In all these aspects of life, the basic convictions of the Christian
faith would direct his or her activities. Believers live out their faith in
whichever sphere of life they choose to participate. To picture how
Kuyper’s system might appear, imagine that a prism has refracted light into
its multiple colors. These colors represent the various social spheres of
human existence—family, business, academy, etc. On one side of the col-
ored lights stand the churches—guiding their members in the knowledge of
God, which informs (but does not dictate) the basic convictions of each
believer. On the other side of the spectrum stands the state, regulating the
interactions among the spheres, assuring that the weak are not trampled,
and calling on all persons to contribute to the common good. Neither
church nor state defines the role of each sphere; instead, each derives its
legitimacy and its role from God.
Kuyper, like Leo XIII, worked and lived in late 19th-century Western
Europe and sought a middle way between the Scylla of state socialism and
the Charybdis of autonomous individualism. Around that time, other social

46
Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism 98; italics original.
47
Abraham Kuyper, Principles of Sacred Theology, trans. Hendrik DeVries
(1898; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1980) 129.
48
I recognize that there are many questions of epistemology implicit here. I wish
only to show that for Kuyper faith and reason are inseparable.
626 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

theorists such as Max Weber and L. T. Hobhouse were also proposing

models for social interaction that included a plurality of social institutions.
While acknowledging the similarities to Hobhouse and Weber, British
theologian Elaine Storkey finds three elements in Kuyper’s view that dis-
tinguish his thought from that of these other seemingly kindred spirits.
First, while Weber and Hobhouse thought of the ethics of social institutions
as deriving from their individual members, Kuyper saw them as having a
divinely appointed role. Second, while for them the state was a neutral
adjudicator, for Kuyper it was an active participant. Finally, while for them
the relationships among institutions were fixed, for Kuyper those relation-
ships must be constantly evaluated so that their boundaries and integrity
are honored.49 Each of these distinctions noted by Storkey is significant
and contributes to an “organic” view of society in which various spheres
develop and interact in relationship to an active, but limited, state.
In sum, I find many similarities between Kuyper’s principle of sphere
sovereignty and the principle of subsidiarity. First, both derive from a
worldview that is assumed to be divinely ordered. Subsidiarity derives from
natural law and sphere sovereignty from the Reformed doctrine of com-
mon grace. Second, both limit state-sovereignty and seek to develop the
roles and scope of intermediate institutions. Third, both insist that all areas
of life are influenced by faith. Fourth, both agree that the state can and
should have an active role in society, but do not wish to see the state dictate
to, or take over the roles of, lesser institutions. In general, the principle of
subsidiarity seems to construct a hierarchy that leads to the common good,
whereas sphere sovereignty provides a process by which diverse spheres
may successfully interrelate. In the next section, I will note a number of the
critiques of the principle of subsidiarity by Reformed scholars.

SUBSIDIARITY AS SEEN BY SPHERE SOVEREIGNTY

Reformed scholars have appreciatively noted similarities between
Kuyper’s theory of sphere sovereignty and the Roman Catholic principle of
subsidiarity. Herman Dooyeweerd (1894–1977), the chief philosopher at
the Free University of Amsterdam, has analyzed the differences. Address-
ing Quadragesimo anno he writes:
At first glance this principle [subsidiarity] seems to be another name for “sphere
sovereignty.” Yet a decisive difference exists between the principles of subsidiarity
and sphere sovereignty. . . . The official Roman Catholic view maintains that the
state and the lower societal communities cannot exhaust the reality of the indi-
vidual as a “natural being.” The rational law of nature holds that man depends on

49
Elaine Storkey, “Sphere Sovereignty and the Anglo-American Tradition,” in
Religion, Pluralism, and Public Life 189–204, at 191–92.
 SUBSIDIARITY AND SPHERE-SOVEREIGNTY 627

the community only for those needs which he himself cannot fill as an individual.
The same natural law also holds that a lower community like the family or the
school depends on the higher communities (ultimately on the state) only for those
interests that it itself cannot handle. Basically, this hierarchical structure describes
the content of the principle of subsidiarity.50

Dooyeweerd’s objection to subsidiarity is in part motivated by the view of

the state in Quadragesimo anno and other pre-Vatican II documents. The
state, as he understood it from Catholic social teaching, was the most
perfect and complete community in the realm of nature. All other entities
were incomplete without it. In addition, he could not understand how the
state could achieve its own telos, when its nature was to be the composite
whole of all the lesser entities. “Thomistic social theory considered the
state to be the perfect human community. Its goal was the ‘common good’
of its members. I ask: how can this teleological goal orientation help us
define the internal nature and structure of the state?”51 I believe his logic is
this: if the state is the composite good of all its members, how can the state
or lesser institutions have their own essential natures and teloi?
Dooyeweerd also objects to the notion that the lesser entities may finally
be seen as parts of the state. For him, the other entities are “sovereign in
their own sphere, and their boundaries are determined not by the common
good of the state but by their own intrinsic nature and law.”52 Dooyeweerd
would object, for example, to the notion that the family is a nucleus of a
series of concentric rings that grow into village, city, and state. Rather, the
family and the state, as well as other spheres, have their own identity and
purpose that are not part of any other. Richard Mouw sums up Dooyewe-
erd’s position:

Dooyeweerd sees the Roman Catholic view as a hierarchical scheme in which the
state is the “totality of natural society,” with the church as representing an even
higher manifestation “of Christian society in its supranatural perfection.” In such a
view, as Dooyeweerd describes it, communities such as family, university, and
corporation are lower parts of these higher organic unities: families are organically
subordinate to the state, and the state to the church. . . . By way of contrast,
Dooyeweerd insists, sphere sovereignty does not merely prescribe a practical
“hands off” policy; rather, the boundaries that separate the spheres are a part of the
very nature of things. Neither the state nor the church has any business viewing the
other spheres as somehow under them. Kuyper’s scheme places “the different

50
Herman Dooyeweerd, Roots of Western Culture: Pagan, Secular, and Christian
Options, trans. John Kraay, ed. Mark Vander Vennen and Bernard Zylstra (To-
ronto: Wedge, 1979) 125. This is a translation of a series of articles in the weekly
Nieuw Nederland from August 1945 to May 1948.
51 52
Ibid. 126. Ibid. 123.
628 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

spheres of life alongside each other” finding their unity not in some “higher” visible
community but in the ordering of a creation that is ruled by God.53
“Subsidiarity,” for Dooyeweerd, thus becomes merely a practical limitation
on the powers of church and state, in which lower entities must be permit-
ted to operate without interference from higher ones. Such a view of sub-
sidiarity made it, in his judgment, incompatible with his conception of
sphere sovereignty in which the spheres are independent from each other
and distinguishable by their unique nature.54
It may be that these objections lose some of their force when read in the
light of John Courtney Murray’s writings on state and society and Vatican
II documents. However, Dooyeweerd’s philosophical question is not
quickly dismissed. How can the nature and goals of the state be the same
as the composite of the diverse natures and goals of other entities that have
their own nature and teloi within the subsiduum?
More recently, reformed political theorist Jonathan Chaplin raised a
question based on subsidiarity’s underlying metaphysic:
The notion of hierarchical ordering is fundamental to Thomist metaphysics. What-
ever is made of its general merits, it creates evident difficulties when applied to the
social world. While it is essential to acknowledge that human beings function within
a diversity of communities, it is problematic to view these as ranked within a
hierarchy. When we attempt to picture the multitude of communities, institutions,
and groups which populate a modern differentiated society in terms of an idea of
graded hierarchy, numerous questions arise. In what sense does the municipality
rank “above” the family? Is the corporation above the union, or vice versa? Where
are political parties or schools positioned in the hierarchy? And perhaps most
awkwardly, in what sense does the church as the supernatural community crown the
entire hierarchy? It appears difficult to find a satisfactory single criterion according
to which a complete ranking could be achieved—which suggests that the very idea
of ranking may be misplaced.55
For Chaplin and other critics, the problem with subsidiarity is that it dis-
tinguishes among similar communities of different rank or size, but not
among dissimilar communities or institutions. In subsidiarity (using a
Thomistic social philosophy), the lesser or subordinate groups are por-
trayed as lacking or incomplete without the presence of the greater and
higher groups. But this seems to be false. Is not the family, for example,
self-sufficient, without the village, state, or church? Does not the state need
the taxes of the business corporation and the citizens raised within families

53
Mouw, “Some Reflections on Sphere Sovereignty” 93. Mouw is referring to
Dooyeweerd’s Roots of Western Culture 127; emphasis added.
54
See ibid.
55
Jonathan Chaplin, “Subsidiarity as a Political Norm,” in Political Theory and
Christian Vision: Essays in Memory of Bernard Zylstra, ed. Jonathan Chaplin and
Paul Marshall (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1994) 81–100, at 92.
 SUBSIDIARITY AND SPHERE-SOVEREIGNTY 629

as much as the corporation and the family need the state? Is a family
somehow less than a state?
Instead of a distinction based on rank from greater to lesser, Chaplin and
other Kuyperians posit that it is the nature of the sphere and the goal
pursued within it that distinguishes one from another. For example, there
is a sphere of economics, in which businesses pursue and promote produc-
tivity. There is also the sphere of the political, in which governments pursue
and promote justice.56 One sphere is not greater or less than the other, but
different in nature and goal. Chaplin concludes, “The appropriate conclu-
sion to draw here is surely that each community performs subsidiary func-
tions towards all the others.”57
Reformers also question the role of the church itself in subsidiarity.
Dooyeweerd writes, “In the realm of grace, the Roman Catholic Church is
the whole of Christian Society in its supranatural perfection.”58 Thus while
all the spheres of the natural realm are governed by the state, the church
is the “perfect community” of another realm. “According to the Roman
Catholic view, nature and grace cannot be separated in a truly Christian
society. This means that the Roman Catholic Church may intervene in the
natural realm.”59 This leads Dooyeweerd to wonder whether the state or
other spheres really are independent of the church, especially those found
in “Catholic nations.” “The state functions as the total community of ‘natu-
ral life,’ but in those affairs that according to the judgment of the church
touch the supranatural well-being of the citizen, it must always heed the
church’s guidance.”60
However, Paul Sigmund, a Catholic political theorist who has studied
sphere-sovereignty, takes the view that recent historical developments in
the understanding of the principle of subsidiarity make it more compatible
with sphere sovereignty.61 He writes, “By the 1960s, subsidiarity no longer

56
Chaplin develops his view of the state thus: “The authority of the state is not
essentially a spiritual, moral, social or psychological kind of authority but a legal
kind. It performs its subsidiary function towards other communities by means of
law, by establishing a legal framework, embodying norms of justice and the re-
quirements of the common good, within which other communities can operate. This
is its unique contribution to the promotion of the common good. (Thomist writers
have in fact always recognized that everyone, not only the state, contributes to the
realization of the common good)” (ibid. 95).
57
Ibid. 93.
58
Dooyeweerd, Roots of Western Culture 129.
59 60
Ibid. 131. Ibid. 132.
61
Paul Sigmund “Subsidiarity, Solidarity, and Liberation: Alternative Ap-
proaches in Catholic Social Thought,” in Religion, Pluralism, and Public Life 205–
20. Sigmund cites the Catholic Chilean economist Jaime Guzman as one who
applies the principle of subsidiarity to economics: “A central element of subsidiarity
is the promotion of private property and a free-enterprise economy as ‘the only
630 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

had hierarchical, corporatist, or authoritarian connotations. It meant the

promotion of decentralization, encouragement of pluralism—including re-
ligious pluralism, federalism, and voluntarism—and support of interna-
tional economic and political integration.”62 Such new directions also led
Henk Woldring, political philosopher at the Free University of Amster-
dam, to claim that “the differences between subsidiarity and sphere sov-
ereignty are in fact quite marginal.”63 Richard Mouw nevertheless con-
cludes, “All things considered, the relationship between subsidiarity and
sphere sovereignty is not an exact fit.”64
The fact that they are a close fit, however, may be due to an interesting
historical possibility, i.e., that Oswald von Nell-Breuning was familiar with
the thinking and writing of Abraham Kuyper. It is widely recognized that
Nell-Breuning was the principal author of Quadragesimo anno. Nell-
Breuning’s collaborator on this work was a Jesuit from Antwerp, Alphons
Müller.65 It would have been virtually impossible for a scholar such as
Müller, living in Dutch-speaking Europe in the 1920s, to have been un-
aware of so dominant a figure as Kuyper. The question thus arises: might

way . . . to protect individual freedom.’” Sigmund also notes that in Centesimus

annus, John Paul II “cited the principle of subsidiarity to justify the promotion of
free economic activity and its creation of jobs and of new sources of productivity”
(ibid. 214, 215).
62
Ibid. 213. See also Jonathan Chaplin, “Subsidiarity and Sphere Sovereignty:
Catholic and Reformed Conceptions of the Role of the State,” in Things Old and
New 175–202.
63
Henk Woldring, “Multiform Responsibility and the Revitalization of Civil
Society,” in Religion, Pluralism, and Public Life 175–88, at 187. See also the chap-
ters by Woldring and Sigmund mentioned above. (Kuyper founded the Free Uni-
versity, and Herman Dooyeweerd was from the 1930s to the 1960s its leading
philosopher).
64
Mouw, “Some Reflections on Sphere Sovereignty” 92.
65
Nell-Breuning writes, “After everything had gone quite well for some time, P.
Ledochowski became convinced that I needed an assistant, namely, P. Alphons
Müller, professor at the business college of our order in Antwerp. This person then
proceeded in short order to eliminate much—in fact, if my memory serves me
correctly, most—of what I had put into the draft; what remained was, in my eyes,
a ‘plucked chicken.’ At that point and in the nick of time a pastoral letter from the
bishop of Strasbourg came to my aid. This pastoral letter, dealing with the same
subject addressed to his diocese, had more pertinent content than what had re-
mained in my draft. Thus I was able to make the case to P. Ledochowski that it was
impossible to assume that the pope would desire to issue an encyclical that would
make a very poor impression when compared with the pastoral letter from the
bishop of Strasbourg. This proved to be the case. Nevertheless, I now had to wrestle
with P. Müller over every little piece of my draft that I wanted to restore” (Oswald
von Nell-Breuning, Wie sozial ist die Kirche? [Dusseldorf: Patmos, 1972] 128–29);
my translation, with help from Sander deHaan of Hope College. My thanks to
Phillip Chmielewski, S.J., for this reference.
 SUBSIDIARITY AND SPHERE-SOVEREIGNTY 631

the draft that Müller contributed to Quadragesimo anno have been influ-
enced by Kuyper’s writings?

SUBSIDIARITY AND SPHERE SOVEREIGNTY TOGETHER

Given their similar history and trajectory, what can the principles of
subsidiarity and sphere sovereignty contribute to each other? In this sec-
tion I will make some observations regarding their similarities and differ-
ences. These observations may suggest paths forward as both Catholic and
Reformed articulate the place of religion and church in a pluralistic social
order. One observation regarding the principles of sphere sovereignty and
subsidiarity is that both seem to be culturally transformative. Neither, to
use H. Richard Niebuhr’s classic taxonomy, is of the Christ versus culture,
or Christ of culture, type.66 Both assume and explicate notions of social
justice based on Christian teaching rather than simply adopting or rejecting
the norms of society. Both assume that there are ways to structure societal
associations that are more just and thus potentially more Christian than
others. This observation regarding Niebuhr’s typology is pertinent, as much
contemporary ethics emphasizes virtues within religious communities but
downplays the relationships among church members and other spheres of
society.
Both the principles of subsidiarity and sphere sovereignty acknowledge
the presence of an “order” within creation and attempt to enunciate prin-
ciples that explicate this order in society. Neither denies (contra poststruc-
turalism) that an order exists. Within the Reformed tradition order is
present as a result of common grace and knowable as general revelation.
Among Catholics natural law is the source of knowledge of this order,
accessible to all via reason. Here the classical debate over Protestant and
Catholic understandings of reason and sin come into play. Among Protes-
tants reason is seen as fallen, corrupt, and at odds with the will of God.
Among Catholics reason is seen as good and natural but incomplete and in
need of grace. Recent studies suggest that a rapprochement on this subject
is possible between the two communities.67 Perhaps these studies will lead
to renewed interest in social theology based on “orders of creation” and
natural law as well.
A second observation is that both subsidiarity and sphere-sovereignty

66
Whether subsidiarity fits within H. Richard Niebuhr’s “Christ above culture”
type may well be the point at issue when the Reformed object to subsidiarity’s
“hierarchical” nature.
67
See, for example, the recent works by Stephen J. Grabill, Rediscovering the
Natural Law in Reformed Theological Ethics (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans,
2006) and Michael Cromartie, A Preserving Grace: Protestants, Catholics, and Natu-
ral Law (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1997).
632 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

need the counterweight of “solidarity.” The principle of solidarity, which

shows that all humans partake of one family and one earth and are all
sisters and brothers as children of God, provides crucial balance to sub-
sidiarity and sphere-sovereignty. The Catholic tradition has made this ex-
plicit in numerous instances. For example, in 1971, the synod of bishops
wrote: “Since men are members of the same human family, they are indis-
solubly linked with one another in the one destiny of the whole world, in
the responsibility for which they all share.”68 Applying the principle of
solidarity to economics, John Paul II also wrote: “Interdependence [in
international relationships] must be transformed into solidarity, based on
the principle that the goods of creation are meant for all. That which
human industry produces through the processing of raw materials, with the
contribution of work, must serve equally for the good of all.”69
While not as explicit, something akin to solidarity is also present in
Kuyper’s thought and the Reformed tradition. For example, in his 1898
Stone Lectures at Princeton University, Kuyper made this statement, re-
markable for a white, upper-class European male of the 19th century:
If Calvinism places our entire human life immediately before God, then it follows
that all men or women, rich or poor, weak or strong, dull or talented, as creatures
of God, and as lost sinners, have no claim whatsoever to lord it over one another,
and we stand as equals before God, and consequently equal as man to man. Hence
we cannot recognize any distinction among men, save such as has been imposed by
God Himself, in that He gave one authority over the other, or enriched one with
more talents than the other, in order that the man of more talents should serve the
man with less, and in him serve his God. Hence Calvinism condemns not merely all
open slavery and systems of caste, but also all covert slavery of woman and of the
poor; it is opposed to all hierarchy among men; it tolerates no aristocracy save such
as is able . . . of spending it in the service of God.70
The principle of solidarity is thus clearly present in Kuyper, if not so
named. Both Kuyperians and Catholics have the ongoing task of relating
solidarity to sphere sovereignty or subsidiarity. This is crucial inasmuch as
subsidiarity and sphere sovereignty are both principles that distinguish and
show differences in the size and nature of associations. Solidarity, by con-
trast, balances these principles with its insistence that all humans are of one
flesh and family, created as equals and before God.
My third observation is this: Both principles insist that the state is not the
final authority in society. They do not permit the state to authorize or

68
Synod of Bishops, Justice in the World, in Catholic Social Thought 288–300, at
289.
69
John Paul II, Sollicitudo rei socialis no. 39.
70
Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism 27. On Kuyper and race relations see Vincent
Bacote, The Spirit in Public Theology: Appropriating the Legacy of Abraham
Kuyper (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2005).
 SUBSIDIARITY AND SPHERE-SOVEREIGNTY 633

legitimate other organizations or spheres. Instead, both see societal asso-

ciations as divinely created and authorized. For example, a family is an
association that is created by God, not the state. The state may indeed
recognize the family and grant it legal status, but in so doing it is neither the
author nor authorizer of family. Whereas the liberal political tradition
insists that the best state is the minimalist state, and the socialist tradition
see benefits of state action at all points, the principles enable genuine
pluralism.
Differences remain, however. The two principles diverge regarding the
role of the church. This is so in two senses. The first point of divergence has
to do with the relationships between the institutional church and institu-
tions in other spheres. The second has to with the role of the church as
privileged interpreter of the social order.
For sphere sovereignty, the church has a societal role only in the sphere
of faith. This sphere is not a unique realm of grace that is different from
nature, but one among the many social spheres. Within its own sphere, the
church instructs and animates its members in the faith; faith being under-
stood as “the function of the soul by which it obtains certainty.”71 This faith
then directs the believer’s life lived outward to other spheres of life. The
Reformed Church is thus the institution that trains and directs the Chris-
tian in his or her faith, and guides each believer as he or she reflects ways
in which that faith might have influence in all spheres of life. The institu-
tional church as such, however, does not act in other spheres. In fact,
reformed believers do not normally welcome the presence of their own or
other institutional churches in other spheres.
The difference may be illustrated with the following example. One
Dutch Calvinist tradition has founded an international network of Chris-
tian day schools.72 The underlying belief is that of Kuyper: God rules over
every square inch of ground, and thus every academic subject matter is a
legitimate field of inquiry for Christians to pursue. The schools from this
tradition, however, are owned and run by parents. While many or even
most of the parents who own and run the school may be members of
Reformed congregations, the schools are legally and functionally indepen-
dent of the Reformed churches. Catechism is not taught in the schools, nor
is Holy Communion celebrated there. Catholic schools, on the other hand,
are tied in varying degrees to their parishes, dioceses, or religious orders—
all parts of the institutional church. The Reformed would see this as an
overstepping of one sphere’s institution—the church—into the legitimate
territory of the school. In the Reformed tradition, the believer, informed by

71
Kuyper, Principles of Sacred Theology 129.
72
Christian Schools International (CSI) is a worldwide organization of schools
founded by members of the Christian Reformed Church in North America.
634 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

the church, lives out her or his faith in the various spheres. The church itself
does not go forward into the other spheres.
Historically, the Roman Catholic Church has often sought to establish
specifically Catholic schools, unions, political parties, and the like, based on
the belief that the church as perfect community of grace must also guide
the realm of nature. In his famous Christmas Message of 1944 Pope Pius
XII declared that a sound democracy must be “founded upon the unchang-
ing principles of natural law and revealed truths.”73 Clearly, for Pius, it is
the church that best knows what these truths are and feels confident in
their applications for society. Paul Sigmund notes that such a stance can
cause strain. “There is still a tension and there always will be between a
hierarchical church that sees itself as a guardian and interpreter of divine
revelation and a sociopolitical structure that decides public questions on
the basis of free discussion, majority rule, and individual rights.”74
The second point of divergence between the principles regarding the role
of the church may also bear investigation. Does the Catholic Church claim
privilege as interpreter of both natural and divine revelation? If so, it may
seem, from the viewpoint of sphere-sovereignty, to be undermining the
integrity of other spheres. The teaching of Gaudium et spes may clarify this
point. In his study of this encyclical, Joseph Komonchak writes: “The
Council went on to speak about particular spheres of the modern world:
marriage and the family, the world of culture, economic and social life, the
political community, and the international community. In each sphere it
attempted to articulate the encounter between fundamental Catholic be-
liefs and values and the specific conditions of modern life.”75 Is the church
here claiming to be the source of true knowledge regarding these spheres,
or is it simply seeking consistency between the Catholic faith and others
spheres of social life? If the latter is the case, the church is simply relating
its fundamental beliefs to its social teachings in a consistent manner. But if
the church sees itself as the ideal community of grace, must it not have, at
the very least, a privileged position of understanding of the natural realm?
This being so, a point of divergence appears between sphere-sovereignty
and subsidiarity. On the question of whether the church is the most con-
sistent, or the most privileged, interpreter of the relationship between be-
liefs and other spheres there may well be two voices within the Catholic
Church itself.

73
Cited in Paul Sigmund, “Catholicism and Liberal Democracy,” in Catholicism
and Liberalism: Contributions to American Public Philosophy, ed. R. Bruce Doug-
las and David Hollenbach (New York: Cambridge University, 1994) 217–41, at 226.
74
Ibid. 237.
75
Joseph A. Komonchak, “Vatican II and the Encounter between Catholicism
and Liberalism,” in Catholicism and Liberalism 76–99, at 83.
 SUBSIDIARITY AND SPHERE-SOVEREIGNTY 635

Defining the number and nature of the spheres is also an area that could
warrant further collaboration. In Economic Justice for All, the Catholic
bishops claim that subsidiarity applies to a diverse range of associations.
“Such groups include families, neighborhoods, church congregations, com-
munity organizations, civic and business associations, public interest and
advocacy groups, community development corporations, and many other
bodies.”76 Is the list of associations the bishops here enumerate exhaustive,
or is it an ordered depiction of what associations are? Notice the great
differences in the nature, size, and purposes of the groups mentioned. What
do they have in common? How are they different? How do they relate to
one another, the church, and the state?
Dooyeweerd has addressed these kinds of questions.77 In fact, he went
into painstaking detail about how many spheres there are and what char-
acterizes each. He argued that the spheres grow in degree of complexity
from the mathematical to the sphere of faith, each building on the other.78
He also provided a way of viewing the relationships among spheres. He
averred that beings or entities in the higher spheres can use entities in the
lower spheres in such a way that they participate in higher levels of the
societal structure. Thus he advocated a hierarchy of complexity, rather
than authority, size, or completeness. For example, a slab of marble in a
mountainside is an object that has properties—chemical, mathematical,
and physical, etc. (lower level spheres). When a sculptor takes that stone
and forms it into a statue, the stone also takes on esthetic and economic
and perhaps psychic properties that it previously did not have. The nature
and use of the object has changed in light of the human/cultural action that
is performed upon it. If the bishops desire dialogue about the nature and
relationships among associations, a partner awaits.
A further question for the Catholic Church that rises from the side of
sphere sovereignty is whether the next logical step in the development of
subsidiarity might be a disengagement from other spheres such as family,
academy, etc. By “disengage,” I certainly do not mean a removal of Catho-

76
U.S. Catholic Bishops, Economic Justice for All no. 308.
77
Herman Dooyeweerd, A New Critique of Theoretical Thought, vol. 2, The
General Theory of the Modal Spheres (St. Catharines, Ont.: Paideia, 1983). For an
introduction to Dooyeweerd’s thought see L. Kalsbeek, Contours of a Christian
Philosophy: An Introduction to Herman Dooyeweerd’s Thought, ed. Bernard and
Josina Zylstra (Toronto: Wedge, 1975). See also http://www.dooy.salford.ac.uk/ and
http://alpha.redeemer.ca/Dooyeweerd-Centre/ (accessed May 5, 2008).
78
Dooyeweerd also argues that each sphere is ontologically distinct from the other
and possesses its own “laws” that must unfold. Such thinking tends to focus on a social
process instead of on actual instances of sin and misery that occur within the society.
This problem has been addressed by, among others, Nicholas Wolterstorff in Until
Justice and Peace Embrace (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1983) 58–59.
636 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

lic faith from family, academy, etc., but rather a structural and legal dis-
engagement of the church as institution from other spheres. For example,
might marriage become rather a civil or familial matter than an ecclesial
one? I suspect this is not likely to happen, but the question of how the
institutional church relates to the many and diverse spheres of life will
undoubtedly continue to surface when such issues are addressed. The Re-
formed answer is that, while faith has a great role in all spheres, the church
as institution has little role to play in this and other areas. Believing mar-
riage partners are seen as blessed by the church, but the wedding is a family
affair, recognized by the state.
Given the numerous points of contact and similarities between the tra-
ditions, the issues addressed above are only some of many that may bear
further comparison and reflection. The principles of subsidiarity and
sphere sovereignty have much in common. Both assume a similar anthro-
pology, reject absolutism of the state or the individual, accept a created
social order, and seek to strengthen intermediate associations. As seen
above, they do work out these issues in distinct ways, since each tradition
developed within its own unique historical and theological setting. Yet,
both traditions continue to explore ways for Christian faith effectively and
faithfully to have an impact upon society. Both do so in pluralistic societies
such as the United States, where the role of faith in public life is contested.
As theologians from these traditions, we may find it valuable to collaborate
further as we work through issues that arise for adherents of a common
faith within a shared society.