Some church leaders—even full-time pastors supported by families—can feel angry or frustrated with moms or dads who are not involved and committed enough to the local church (as much as they think they should be, anyway) due to family commitments. A few years ago, one pastor shared with me over breakfast how certain young dads in his church—who I knew personally and thought should be commended—needed to “grow up, address their idols of family, and roll up their sleeves to make this church… work.” Although part of his frustrations might have partially been addressed by members “leaning in” to their church commitments, much of his anger was misplaced. Further, the true source of this frustration often comes from impatience, unbiblical and unrealistic expectations (I speak from experience!), lack of awareness of how championing moms and dads can be part of the church’s most strategic mission, as well as ignorance of or rejection of the concept of sphere sovereignty.

Dutch theologian and statesman Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) is credited for the helpful theological construct called “sphere sovereignty.” It was a favorite concept of the late Chuck Colson, and it has contributed to changes in my own thinking in the last fifteen years. One of the most accessible places to get a quick handle on the concept is in Richard Mouw’s book, Abraham Kuyper: A Short and Personal Introduction. Mouw explains that sphere sovereignty is Kuyper’s term for talking about “each sphere [domain] having its own unique or separate character . . . its own place in God’s plan for creation, and each is directly under the divine rule.”[1] Here is how one Kuyperian scholar put it: “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.”[2]

Families led by parents are an example of one sphere[3] of God’s kingdom. The family is not only a legitimate sovereign sphere of God’s kingdom, it is the oldest. James Bratt, in his recent biography of Kuyper, underscores this point and the importance it had in Kuyper’s thought:

“[It was] first in every sense of the term. It was the first institution to appear in history and seeded all the rest. Its health was the foundation and surest barometer of society’s wellbeing. It grew from nature, prospered by nurture, and properly taught its members how to balance personal autonomy, mutual dependence, and due responsibility—that is, it was society in a miniature. Likewise, its authority was the source of, model for, and limit upon the state. Properly functioning, it also exhibited church-like qualities in being crowned with love and becoming a school for morals.”[4]

Again, each sphere has its own separate domains of authority and legitimacy and needs to respect the other spheres. Governments, which comprise one sphere, for example, do not grant rights to families, which are another sphere. They recognize rights. Churches also—another separate sphere—need to recognize the unique and separate sphere of families. Families do not exist to make the church’s vision and programs work. Although this last sentence may sound strong, I used to believe, at some level, that they did, and I was often frustrated that families were not more committed to “the kingdom work” of the church. My view here was intertwined with a phrase that influential and now scandalized former mega-church pastor, Bill Hybels, often said: “The church is the hope of the world.” I now believe only Jesus is the hope of the world, although I freely admit and appreciate how He uses both families and churches, as well as other spheres, to do his bidding.

Mouw clarifies exactly why church leaders—and really all of us—need to have a higher and more expansive view of God’s kingdom work:

“Kuyper makes much of the fact that the Kingdom of Christ is much bigger than the institutional church. The Kingdom is the broad range of reality over which Christ rules. Actually, Christ’s Kingdom is the whole cosmos—remember Kuyper’s manifesto about every square inch of creation belonging to Jesus. But in a more focused sense—the sense we will be assuming here—the Kingdom covers all of those areas of reality where Christ’s rule is acknowledged by those who work to make that rule visible.

The institutional church is certainly an important part of Christ’s Kingdom. It is where we as believers gather to worship—where we are shaped by the preaching of the Word, by participation in sacraments, by instruction in the church’s instructions and teachings, and by less formal patterns of fellowship. In the life of the institutional church, believers regularly acknowledge the authority of Jesus Christ over their daily lives.

But the church is only one part of the Kingdom. And it is no trivial thing to point that out. I once heard a prominent pastor complain from the pulpit about lay people—he used the example of Christians in the business community—who don’t give enough of their time to church activities. This is how he put it: “These folks work all day at their marketplace jobs, and then they go home and watch television. Other than coming to Sunday services,” he said, “they don’t seem to care about Kingdom activities!”

Kuyper would have been horrified at that statement—as I was. The pastor was equating church and Kingdom, as if the two terms were interchangeable. Kuyper would urge business people to see their places of work [or their families] as providing important opportunities for Kingdom service.”[5]

[1] Richard J. Mouw, Abraham Kuyper: A Short and Personal Introduction (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2011), 23.

[2] Ibid., 24.

[3] In his work, Kuyper wrote especially about the spheres or separate domains of the church, education, the family, the state, the arts, and the sciences. Business or the marketplace would certainly be added to this.

[4] James Bratt, Abraham Kuyper: Modern Calvinist, Christian Democrat (Grand Rapids, IL: Eerdmans, 2013), 144–145.

[5] Mouw, Abraham Kuyper, 57.