Spheres of Sovereignty is a blog devoted to exploring the relationship between law and theology as it specifically relates to church autonomy. Our research has emphasized the impact of Reformation church-state theology on modern church-state legal doctrine, and this is reflected in the title and header for this blog. The Reformed understanding emphasizes that church and state are independent jurisdictions, each of which should respect the other’s sphere of authority. The Dutch theologian, statesman, and philosopher Abraham Kuyper termed this the doctrine of “sphere sovereignty.” Without any indication that it was aware of Kuyper’s phrase, the Texas Supreme Court used the term “spheres of sovereignty” to describe church autonomy doctrine in an important case it decided in 2007. The connection between the theology and the law could hardly have been clearer. It is this connection that this blog is dedicated to exploring.
What is church autonomy?
Church autonomy is a legal doctrine that “prohibits civil court review of internal church disputes involving matters of faith, doctrine, church governance, and polity.”1 Church autonomy doctrine is at one of the most fascinating junctures in Constitutional law, the intersections between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. Not only is it a fascinating legal doctrine in the academic sense, but church autonomy doctrine directly impacts many Americans—pastors, church members, seminary administrators—in their practice of important church functions, such as exercising church discipline, hiring and firing employees on religious criteria, and resolving disputes over church property.
The theoretical underpinnings of church autonomy extend well beyond immediate applications, such as whether a particular church can be sued on a particular claim. Church autonomy is about an entire philosophy of authority and law that is rooted in a theological doctrine, namely, that no human institution is absolutely “sovereign.” Human authorities are divided between several jurisdictions. That is why the state is not all-powerful, and that is why the church does not run the government. This concept was well encapsulated in the term, “sphere sovereignty,” coined by Abraham Kuyper.
How this blog began
In June of 2007, the Texas Supreme Court handed down Westbrook v. Penley, a landmark church autonomy case. That case inspired us (Bob Renaud and Lael Weinberger) to research church autonomy and write a law review article that put the doctrine in perspective as a product of historical and theological ideas of church and state. The article is to be published as Spheres of Sovereignty: Church Autonomy Doctrine and the Theological Heritage of the Separation of Church and State 35 N. KY. L. Rev. (Issue 1, 2008). This research seemed to bring together many of our longtime interests in new ways: law, history, theology, and philosophy. After receiving feedback on our law review article from several scholars (most notably Professors Nicholas Wolterstorff of Yale and John H. Mansfield of Harvard) encouraging us to continue writing on this subject, we decided to launch this blog as a continuation of that research, and an ongoing conversation about the status of sphere sovereignty and the relationship between church and state. And, agreeing with Paul Johnson that “to produce a book is the only way to study a subject systematically, purposefully, and retentively,” we have also begun working on a book to continue fleshing out these ideas.
About the portraits
The portraits on our banner are, left to right, John Calvin, John Knox, George Gillespie, and Abraham Kuyper. Each represents an important part of the heritage of sphere sovereignty approaches to church and state.
1 Bryce v. Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Colorado, 289 F.3d 648, 655 (10th Cir. 2002), citing Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church, 344 U.S. 94, 116–17 (1952).