Video Transcript: Review and Communities

We've covered a lot of new stuff and a lot of new concepts and ideas. And  before we jump now to the theory of the state itself, first look at Christian social  theory as the background, and then specifically the institution of the state, I  thought it would be a good idea to summarize, everything to cover briefly point  two and remind you of all those different things that we've covered. So far. We  started with what we all find, in our own experience, that the things and the the  events that surround us exhibit properties of different kinds. And those  properties are ordered. They're not chaotic, there's an order to them, that  reflects their law, the laws that govern them. So they are kinds of properties and  laws. So there are quantitative spatial, physical sensory properties related to  one another by laws, they're necessary truths in every one of those aspects, one plus one must make two. If two triangles are equal angle, side angle, then  they're congruent, being blue excludes being red. All that kind of thing is there  orderly, we classify things, the things that we experience, according to the  aspects in which they possess their properties actively. So a rock is only  passive, sensorally or logically, but it's act, it's active, as so far as its physical  characteristics are concerned. Do you remember we had that little truck  comparing a rock, and a plant and animal and finally, a human being? We call  that it's qualifying function. The qualifying aspect of the thing is also the one  whose laws determine the overall organization, the internal organization of a  thing taken as a whole. So whether that's whether that's a rock, and we have  some kind of crystalline structure, whether it's a plant, which is qualified  biotically, and, or it's a artifact, we're going to look for the qualifying aspect of the thing in order to get a focus on its nature, artifacts differ from natural things. And  the two aspects qualify their natures. One aspect, Dooyeweerd calls it the  foundational function of the thing. That's the aspect whose laws govern the  process of forming it. And then there is the aspect of its, as its leading function.  That was the aspect that provided the kind of thing if it was intended to become  what the thing now is. Whereas before, it was only natural material, now it has  become something new. And the nature of that varies, depending on the artifact, some artifacts are works of art, so they're qualified, aesthetically, that would be  their leading function, some, some artifacts, are tools, they are qualified  formatively, they are formed in order to help form other things. And we covered  that sort of thing. But I'm reminding you, though, where we've come, then I  pointed out that social communities are also artifacts. People form them.  People, join them, leave them. They're not natural in the sense of being a  natural material that we find in the world. And there are all kinds of social  communities, marriage, family, church, school, business, labor union, charitable  organization, organizations for the preservation, health, hospitals, clinics, they're all sorts in society. And the question arises, then how are they related to one  another? And the collectivist answer was that there's some overarching  community that includes all the others, and all the others are parts of it. And all 

the members all human beings that are members are parts of that great,  overarching, organization and in the history of human thought, that's almost  always been argued to be the state, the political institution of society, which has  it's goal making and enforcing laws. The government is the ruling body, and the  claim has been made over and over that that's the supreme institution in society  includes all the others. So, we took up the question about individualism and  collectivism. collectivism, argues that the state is the whole and that's more  important. It's prior to the parts because it produces the parts the parts can't  function correctly without it. We've been distinguish between a part/whole  relation. And another kind of relationship, which is often often goes unnoticed.  And that is that there are wholes that are comprised of great of lesser wholes,  smaller wholes combining to make a greater whole. Dooyeweerd's term for that  is encapsus, and I called it a capsulate relation. And what we wanted to argue  was that for something to really be a part of another thing, it's not only the case  that it can't come into existence apart from the other and plays an internal role in the organization of the other, but that it has to have the same qualifying function. That's why a cell really is part of a plant, they're both biotically qualified. It's why  say the moon, our moon can be part of the solar system. Same qualification.  Now, what we then wanted to argue, on Christian grounds was as humans are  not really parts of anything, they have no qualification, there is no qualifying  function for human beings, human beings are the only things we know of that  function in all of the aspects actively and passively. But at the core humans are  religious beings, created for fellowship with God. And that has to do with the  human heart, in the in biblical language, the center of human existence. It's the  seat of our identity and the source of what makes us what we are. There's a  text that says, from the hear come the issues of life, we are reminded in the New Testament that it's with a heart that one believes, if you believe in your heart  confess with your lips that Jesus is Christ, then you have the salvation that He  came to bring you. That puts humans in one sense, above nature, that is there  something about the human heart, that is not determined by the laws of these  aspects or other causal laws or any others that exist, there's a center there  that's genuinely free, free to choose to do good or evil, free to choose your, your  course in life and so on. That freedom is real. And it's from because of that,  humans have no qualifying function, and therefore they're never just parts of any community, their relation to communities is that there are sub wholes, that  function in those communities in specific ways, depending on the nature of the  community. What we're trying to get at, then are the are the natures of  communities? What's the relation of them, that they have to one another? Is it  really true as the collectivist says that all other institutions in society, marriage,  family, business, places, or religious worship, and so on, they're all are they all  parts of the state. And given the definitions that we have that include, for  something to be a part of another thing, it has to be the case that it can't come 

into existence without that other without the larger whole, it can't function without it, and it has to have the same qualifying function. And that being the case, the  startling outcome here is that no major kind of social community is a part of any  other. They have distinct qualifying functions. Marriage is qualified by love as is  family, church is qualified by faith, businesses qualified economically, it's there to provide a product or service so that people can make a living. The Health  Organization is there to preserve people's biological well being then there are  organizations that try to preserve their psychological well being. And we have all sorts of other institutions, labor unions, sports clubs, there are many, many kinds of institutions in society, communities, and if they have a different qualifying  function, they cannot be a part of one another. So, we see, we meaning those of us who hold this kind of view the Christian philosophy, that there is a plurality of  kinds of communities, social communities in human society, and that none of  them have the same qualifying function, the major ones, marriage, state church,  are different have difficult qualifications and therefore, no one of them can be a  part of any other. So we reject the view, the collectivist view that the state  includes all the other institutions, as well as the individuals who are members of  them, they're members of the state. The state is the grand overarching whole  that makes society and human life possible and is supreme. That's rejected. But  it doesn't have to be rejected by being an individualist and claiming that  individuals are perfectly capable, capable of existing in solitude, without the help of other individuals. And each one can manage just fine. And they don't need a  state. But if they think they do, they can form one anytime they want. So all  social institutions are voluntary. Organizations according to the individualist view. Now let's see what we should say about all that, again, I'm raising this. from a  Christian point of view, and I mentioned last time, that what we want to do is  take some of the hints that Scripture gives us concerning this matter. This is  what I mean. The New Testament specifically tells us to pay honor to those who  are the officials in the state. And that state exists to punish evildoers. I think  that's not its only function, but it's certainly that is one of them. It exists to  enforce the law to keep the peace. So it does is specifically mentioned the state  and it doesn't say, oh, it's wrong to have states, or we can't wait till the state gets done away because in heaven, there'll be no state. That's not the way the New  Testament talks. Instead, it says, the state will be ruled by Jesus Christ as King.  And he will bring forth justice. So the state's part of human life, it's an expression of the just, of our concern for justice, that's natural to us. There are other  institutions as well. And I mentioned that they all have different qualifying  functions. So let's think about some more hints. What else does the New  Testament have to say that we might use as a springboard? Well, it certainly  speaks of families. And it's, it specifically tells us that the parents are the  authority in the family. One of the commandment says, Honor your father and  your mother, and every commentator, who has ever commented on that says, 

Well, of course, it doesn't just mean your father and your mother. This is the first  example of authority any of us encounter. It's all legitimate authority that must be respected. So we have a stamp of approval on marriage, family and state. But  the Scripture also speaks of the owners that have a business, that the owner  has the right to decide what is going to be produced, what service, how it's going to be run, who's going to be hired, how much they're going to be paid, and so  on. So we have an acknowledgment of an economic side of life business, in  particular. Abraham Kuyper, great thinker, Dutch thinker who became Prime  Minister of the Netherlands back about the time, Teddy Roosevelt was president  of the United States was an acute social thinker. And he took these hints. And  he said, and he built a theory of human society around them. And that theory  was adopted by Dooyeweerd also and expanded. When we return, we're going  to first look at the theory of society as a whole, that Kuyper worked out. It's a  theory he called sphere of sovereignty. Scripture speaks to us of authorities in  life, he says, but there's not one great authority. There are many. The parents in  a home, the teacher in the classroom, the owner in your business, the clergy in  the church, officials in the state, and more. These are all legitimate kinds of  authority that we encounter in life. And from that he's going to build and expand  upon a Christian social theory, and that's going to provide the background for his Dooyeweerd's theory of the state.