“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!’”

– Abraham Kuyper

I make sure to go to church every Sunday. I imagine that many others do this as well. Maybe not as many as one would like, but there are still many who find themselves in a church on Sundays. If you’re lucky, you’ll even get the chance to go to a good church. Good in the sense that the sermon and message leaves you with a greater understanding of God and of His character. Often, in a very fiery and emotional sermon, commands or rather recommendations will start to flow from the preacher. He will say things like: “We need to love people more.” Or “We should forgive our neighbor.” Politicians like to say similar statements: “We need to address this current crisis. We must make sure that things change for the future.” Even amongst friends, one can hear a similar cadence. “We should go to McDonalds. We have to check out this new game.” We tend to use we a lot. And not only do we use we a lot, but it pops up in a number of contexts and from very different people. Which leads me to my main question for the moment: What does we actually mean? Who exactly are we referring to when we say we?

When a pastor says that we need to be more loving, who is we? Does he mean that local church body, the elders and deacons, everybody in the room, all members of that particular denomination, all Christians around the world, the elect? It isn’t immediately obvious who he means exactly. To some extent maybe he means every person claiming to be Christian, but this is an assumption.

What about a politician making a speech? On September 12, 1962, President John F. Kennedy gave a speech in Houston, Texas to try and drum up support for America’s space program and the goal to be the first country to land a man on the moon. In the very middle of his speech he said a famous line that the speech is now known for: “We choose to go to the Moon.” It was a very powerful speech and the legacy that Kennedy has had on America’s celestial endeavors has been significant. Though, the question remains: who is we? Who exactly is choosing to go to the moon? The president, his cabinet, congress, NASA, Texans, Americans, the world? One could infer that he was appealing to all Americans to support the herculean task of space travel. But as with the pastor before, this is an assumption.

Let’s be polite and say that when a pastor is giving an exhortation, his words could reasonably be applied to all Christians. We could also say that when a president is addressing an audience, he is probably trying to appeal to all citizens when he uses plural pronouns, like we. Acceptable assumptions, but we then have to ask a very important question; How far reaching do these commands apply? And should these commands be addressed the same way by everyone? Galatians 5:22-23 lists the fruits of the spirit as the following: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. This is a lovely list, and all Christians should strive to have a life that is filled with these traits. However, to practice say joy, should all Christians take the same action to get joy, or might there be different actions that different Christians need to take to see joy as a fruit? In other words, the principle never changes, but the steps needed to get there might not always look the same.

This leads me to a hero of the faith, Martin Luther. One of the many things that he wrote about was the two kingdoms doctrine. The idea is derived from St. Augustine’s model of the City of God. The idea with the two kingdoms doctrine is that God rules the world in two different ways: through the spiritual realm of the church and the earthly realm of civil government. One could even call this idea a prototypical version of separation of church and state. One of the reasons why Luther felt that this idea was important was because of the context of his time. He saw a Roman Catholic Church that had its hand in any and everything. They had major influence in politics and on the governing of all of Europe. Likewise, local princes and secular leaders were giving dictates and orders to the local churches and some were stopping the printing and distribution of Luther’s translated New Testament. He felt that both the church and the state had their place, but that their roles were different.

This idea has been proliferated through Lutheran and Reformed churches over the centuries. Later it was expanded upon and a new idea was born out of it. Neo-Calvinist theologian and Dutch prime minister Abraham Kuyper came up with the idea of sphere sovereignty. His idea was certainly an evolution of Luther’s and not a rejection. Instead of seeing everything split between the church and the state, Kuyper figured that everything in life can be split up into its different spheres. In the twenty-first century it is common in some Christian circles to talk about three spheres; church, state, and family. Though Kuyper would have expanded this even further. He would have also said that there are spheres like education, business, science, art, and more. Unlike the two kingdoms doctrine, there is bound to be a lot more overlap between the different spheres. However the main focus and commands of each sphere will be different.

You might ask, what’s the point of all of this, why am I bringing this up? I am bringing up these ideas because I think they are integrally linked with the question of who is we? It has become clear to me recently that the Kingdom of God really is a large body made up of many different members. The main goal of the church and of Christians is to love God and to love others. The principle will never change. However, how each body part is to live this out might change drastically. It doesn’t matter whether someone is a pastor, doctor, engineer, journalist, teacher, lawyer, or a politician, we (Christians) are all called to glorify God and become more like Christ. That will look a little bit different for each person. One may be able to give more of their time, another money, the other energy. I don’t think it is wise to necessarily ask for the exact same from every person.

Case in point, how do we deal with forgiveness? In a previous post I have addressed this question a bit already. On an interpersonal level, forgiveness is tantamount. We must forgive, seventy times seven times. As a follower of Christ, I am called to forgive everyone, and not just those who ask for it. What about a church, a local body of believers? A church needs to practice the principle of forgiveness, but this will look a little different. Just because someone is causing trouble or maybe said something on Sunday that wasn’t savory doesn’t mean that this person should be kicked out. However, for the sake of the flock they might not get the chance to teach. They are forgiven, but the church has to protect the hearts and minds of the congregation. What about the state? What should happen if someone has been caught stealing? The state still has the principle of forgiveness, meaning that any punishment should not be overblown or cruel. Said perpetrator should have the chance to repent and to change. However, the state also has a God given role to administer justice and to look out for those who have been wronged. It is therefore critical that kings use the sword to protect their subjects so that righteousness can flourish throughout the land. The principle is constant; its application is not.

What about when it comes to caring for the poor? A Christian would do well to get involved with charities and soup kitchens. Caring for others and spending time with those of very different circumstances is good and a great way to emulate Jesus. It is also worth donating money, not just to the church, but to different charities. “Our” money is in fact God’s money that we get the privilege of stewarding, so we (individual Christians) should utilize it accordingly. What about a local church, how should they deal with the poor? It will probably look similar, but with a few changes. Churches often have the chance to run their own charities and local schemes. Historically churches often gave help, but with conditions attached to it. They would give people food and sometimes financial support, but they wanted those being helped to also attend the church and to learn about Jesus. They also would sometimes have to expel those who were abusing the system or people who were causing too much trouble. It is good for churches to look after the poor, but churches are made up of people, and it is reasonable that people can only do so much and can only handle so much. It is good for a church to not be too legalistic about charity, but because they are often handling donations, it is also fair to have the desire to use this money wisely. What about the state? This is where things do change a bit. If a state has excess money and wants to try and lift people out of poverty, that isn’t a bad goal, but the state does have other responsibilities to fulfill as well. It is all well and good for a state to fund welfare and entitlements, but the state also has the responsibility to fund its justice system, infrastructure, and defense. This is where balance is important. Also, because of the unfortunate correlation that poverty has with antisocial behavior and substance abuse, the state may have to administer justice to people who may be otherwise be recipients of help from individuals and churches. For the sake of society and the flourishing of a king’s subject, it is important that the state takes action to discourage bad behavior. Tolerance of antisocial behavior should be low when it is being looked at from the perspective of the state. Individuals and churches will of course have a different level of tolerance. The principle is constant; its application is not.

For a final example, what about immigration? This topic is more political in nature, but I think the application here is strong. In the West, and Europe especially, there has been a very large amount of migration from Middle Eastern and broadly Mohammadan nations in the past decade or two. On the personal level and for local churches, this offers an amazing opportunity to share the gospel to people who would have otherwise never heard about it. As there are now many of these people in historically Christian countries, it is worth trying to build and to use these connections for the sake of evangelism and establishing a bridgehead for mission work. As these Muslims continue to travel back and forth from their home countries and Europe, any converts to Christianity offer a lot of opportunity and these connections may also lead others who were already in the faith to be able to evangelize in the Middle East. On an interpersonal level, we (Christians) are called to love the foreigner and to show them love, grace, and charity. However, this should look different from the perspective of the state. The increase in Muslim migration has brought with it a plethora of issues. There have been expected issues with integration, a difference of values, and cultural variability. Unfortunately, there have also been a lot of deeper issues. Sexual assault, criminality, hate crimes, and terrorism are a lot more likely in these communities and societally Europe has grown a lot weaker because of this. As the state is having to deal with a slow demographic take over of historically Christians nations. It is fair and right for a state to say that the situation is unacceptable and that many, most, if not all of these recent arrivals will have to leave. A king’s duty is exclusively to God and his subjects. Treatment of foreigners should by no means be cruel or unjust, but a king needs to protect his people. This means that a local church might be trying to evangelize and connect to the Middle Eastern community, while the government is trying to send them home. The principle is constant; its application is not.

Why am I saying all this? I just think that we (anybody reading this) should be more mindful when we say we. Jesus’ call to go out and make disciples of all nations is constant in every sphere, but what one does with that will look a little different. I find that a lot of discussions become confused and/or muddled because the different interlocutors are talking past each other. Often both parties are correct, it is just that what they are saying is not universally applicable. As Christians, Americans (or Germans), humans, workers, managers, mothers, fathers, children, we (anybody reading this) should be mindful of which hat we are wearing and how people wearing other hats might need a different antidote. If we (everybody on Earth) can’t understand the different roles of the state, family, church, and the other spheres, we risk advocating for wrong and sinful solutions to a certain sphere’s problems.

There are many cases in which the political solution to something, and a focus on justice and righteousness would be totally unacceptable on an interpersonal level. As an example, families tend to be somewhat communistic in their handling of money. Parents don’t tend to ask for their children to pay for food or to access water or the bathroom. It would also be pretty daft for parents to ask for rent from their children. A family is different from a state and a church. Likewise, a state cannot afford to prioritize forgiveness, at least in the sense that an individual would understand it. The state must take the sword and punish those who have broken the law, this call exists in both the New and Old Testament. It is cruel to the victims to not punish the perpetrators. To be far, the easiest way to lose friends is to hold grudges. Interpersonally, we (Christians) need to show God’s love and turn the other check. Christians should be leaders in every sphere, but that doesn’t mean that the prescription will always be the same. It takes discernment and righteous judgment to know when to use each tool, never forgetting that Jesus needs to be the center of it all.

There isn’t any square inch of creation that doesn’t belong to our Lord Jesus Christ. And it’s not just physical. Thoughts, prayers, and concepts also belong to God and He really is the ruler over everything. If we could see how His will and plan is being furthered through each sphere of creation, I think we’d be amazed.

Soli Deo Gloria.

“The Lord has established his throne in the heavens, and his kingdom rules over all.” – Psalm 103:19 (ESV)