I was supposed to go to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) today to complete the amnesty application for our school. However, due to the injury of my brother-in-law's left foot, we have to reschedule our visit. The reason why he must go with me is because he is familiar with the procedure from the very beginning of the process.
Around 2 PM, we had a meeting to prepare for the approaching Reformation Day this 31st October. The Association of Reformed Theology Students (ARTS) has been assigned by the president to prepare for the program. While discussing, we came up with a theme based on Abraham Kuyper's social engagement in the Netherlands. This reminded me of his Lectures on Calvinism by Abraham Kuyper, particularly the section on sovereignty in society in his lecture on Calvinism and Politics.
And then the president asked me about my idea related to the program. I told him that college students can do it. They are very creative. They can include a musical number, a declamation competition, and even a short play dramatizing the Reformation theme.
While contemplating this idea, I am reminded of AI. All I need to do is rewrite that specific portion about sovereignty in society and from there, I can ask AI to give me a "poetic reflection" and a "dialogue or screenplay format". This will make our task easier. I am even thinking of having a Tagalog or Filipino version of poetic reflection. Grateful for those who give us this kind of technology!
And now for that specific content about sovereignty in society:
-0-0-0-0-
Prompt: Tyranny versus Liberty, by Yoji Shinkawa
The following content is the second part of Kuyper's lecture on Calvinism and Politics. In his mind, he interprets Calvinism not just as a religious movement or a theological construct, but as a political faith. From this perspective, despite the accusation that John Calvin was a tyrant in Geneva during the 16th century, we can see how Calvinism helps protect liberty both from State tyranny and the popular concept of liberty without boundary. He presented his case based on three arguments:
Sovereignty in the State
Sovereignty in Society, and
Sovereignty in the Church
Our concern in this article is the second argument, sovereignty in society.
Sovereignty in society, both traditional and contemporary Calvinists understand this as follows:
. . . that family, business, science, art, and so forth are all social spheres, which do not owe their existence to the State, and which do not derive the law of their life from the superiority of the State, but obey a high authority within their own bosom; an authority which rules, by the grace of God, just as the sovereignty of the State does (Lectures on Calvinism, p. 90.).
Based on this analysis, an antithesis exists between the State and Society, for one is mechanical in character, and the other one is organic. The State cannot intrude and has nothing to command in these social spheres. Kuyper explains further the distinction between the mechanical character of the State and the organic character of social spheres:
It is here of the highest importance to keep in mind the difference in grade between the organic life of society and the mechanical character of the government. Whatever among men originates directly from creation is possessed of all the data for its development, in human nature as such. You see this at once in the family and in the connection of blood relations and other ties. From the duality of man and woman marriage arises. From the original existence of one man and one woman monogamy comes forth. The children exist because of the innate power of reproduction. Naturally, the children are connected as brothers and sisters. And when by and by these children, in their turn, marry again, as a matter of course, all those connections originate from relationships and other ties, which dominate the whole family life. In all this, there is nothing mechanical. The development is spontaneous, just as that of the stem and the branches of a plant (ibid., p. 91).
Kuyper described other social spheres such as science, art, and others with the same character.
In contrast to this organic character, the State is mechanical by its very nature. Kuyper elaborates on this:
But the case is wholly different with the assertion of the powers of government. . . .Thus peoples and nations originated. These peoples formed States. And over these States God appointed governments. And thus, if I may be allowed the expression, it is not a natural head, which organically grew from the body of the people, but a mechanical head, which from without has been placed upon the trunk of the nation (ibid., pp. 92-93).
With this mechanical personality of the State, “the principal characteristic of government is the right of life and death” (p. 93) and the sword is the best symbol to represent such power.
Based on apostolic testimony, this sword has a threefold meaning:
It is the sword of justice, to mete out corporeal punishment to the criminal.
It is the sword of war to defend the honor of the rights and the interests of the State against its enemies.
And it is the sword of order, to thwart at home all forcible rebellion (ibid.).
However, Kuyper emphasizes that to serve justice remains the highest duty of the government, and secondly the protection of its citizenry both from domestic and foreign threats (ibid.).
The outcome of this organic character of social spheres and the mechanical nature of the government is one of conflict and tension simply because the latter tends:
To invade social life, to subject it and mechanically to arrange it. On the other hand social life always endeavors to shake off the authority of the government, just as this endeavor at present again culminates in social democracy and in anarchism, both of which aim at nothing less than the total overthrow of the institution of authority (ibid., pp. 93-94).
But despite such detrimental outcomes due to mechanical interference of government, still Kuyper thinks that cooperation is attained between society and the State with “the so-called ‘constitutional government’” (p. 94), and it is exactly in this area that Calvinism made a great contribution.
After emphasizing the manner this tension between the organic and mechanical spheres is resolved through constitutional government, Kuyper then gave us specific examples of such organic authority in different social spheres in which he cites Science as his first example where he recognizes geniuses as sovereign powers displayed in the influence of their ideas, publication of books, and establishment of schools.
In Art, the maestro is considered the king. The same thing is true with human personalities where equality does not exist. There are weak and narrow-minded people, and there are also strong and broad-minded people.
These personality differences can be seen in the labor of the mechanic, in the shop, on the exchange, in commerce, on the sea, and in the field of benevolence and philanthropy.
Summarizing this idea of sphere sovereignty, Kuyper classifies them into at least four categories:
In the social sphere, by personal superiority.
In the corporative sphere of universities, guilds, associations, etc.
In the domestic sphere of the family and of married life, and
In communal autonomy
Source: (ibid. p. 96).
Kuyper warns that “in all these four spheres the Government cannot impose its laws, but must reverence the innate law of life” (ibid.) for God Himself rules in these spheres.
Kuyper clarifies further this idea of limited sovereignty of the State:
Bound by its own mandate, therefore, the government may neither ignore nor modify nor disrupt the divine mandate, under which these social spheres stand. The sovereignty, by the grace of God, of the government is here set aside and limited, for God's sake, by another sovereignty, which is equally divine in origin. Neither the life of science nor of art, nor agriculture, nor industry, nor commerce, nor navigation, nor the family, nor human relationship may be coerced to suit itself to the grace of the government. 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” (pp. 96-97).
A concluding personal commentary is appropriate at this point. I like how Kuyper implies the destructive results once the State behaves like an octopus. Using this analogy, the State's tentacles symbolize its pervasive reach into various aspects of society, from regulations and laws to surveillance and control just like what is happening right now in the crypto space. Just like an octopus ensnares its prey, the State, if too intrusive or overreaching, can limit individual freedom, creativity, and innovation and lead to destructive consequences. As such, the State is the enemy of capital, innovation, and growth. Excessive bureaucracy and stringent policies can restrict the natural flow of human life, impeding personal liberties and hindering societal progress. Politicians and bureaucrats behaving like octopuses suffocate the very essence of human existence.