 theology of public life, lessons for lot in the city of Sodom, Leviathan rising, we took that word Leviathan from Thomas Hobbes who saw government or the encroachments of the state as a Leviathan. And we talk about the tentacles of its tyranny in the sense that Leviathan has its tentacles all over public life today encroaching on every sphere. And we as Christians need to understand why that happens and what our response should be to that in forming a theology of public life. And right now what we're talking about in these last week and then now this week is Abraham Kuyper's theology of public life that's summarized in a principle called sphere sovereignty, sphere sovereignty. And to give us a brief review before we finish out that subject and maybe draw some implications of that this morning, brief review, since the reformed confessions in the 16th, 17th centuries, in particular during those 16th and 17th centuries, there was a continued development of the thought of reformed people, in particular reformed particular Baptists with respect to public theology or theology of public life. And one of the more recent developments in that thought over time, that thought has been developed, biblical theology has been formed and one of the more influential developments in that theology of public life has been the writings of Abraham Kuyper. And in particular, Kuyper's work on something that he termed sphere sovereignty. And just to remind us who Abraham Kuyper is, Abraham Kuyper was a Dutch reformer, heavily involved in Dutch politics, was even prime minister of the Netherlands at one point, founded their most prominent political party. And so Abraham Kuyper, a minister in the Dutch reform church, an elder in the Dutch reform church, but also heavily involved in social, cultural life in the Netherlands. And that was by intention. Abraham Kuyper's summarizes his public theology this way. He says that Jesus Christ is Lord of all. And because of that fact, our allegiance to him should shape not only the private, but also the public aspects of our lives. And we think about that, we understand the Bible teaches that when we think about the Lordship of Jesus Christ, we know that the Lordship of Jesus Christ doesn't extend merely or only over his church, but that the Lordship of Jesus Christ extends over every aspect of human life, period. End of story. His Lordship extends into every sphere of life. That's where Luther, other reformers, drew their understanding of Corum Deo, or living life under the gaze of God, under the omnipotent, omniscient, omnisapient gaze of God, omnipresent gaze of God. Every aspect of our lives is to be lived under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. And Abraham Kuyper took that to its logical and biblical conclusions with respect to a public theology, not just an ecclesial theology or a personal theology, but a public theology. His public theology involved Christian engagement within three basic spheres of life. First, the sphere of the state referring to the civil government. And Kuyper drew three assertions from this sphere of the state. First, God only, never any creature is possessed of sovereign rights. God alone has sovereign rights, alone created them. He maintains them by his almighty power, rules them by his law, by his ordinances. And that goes not just to the theocracy in Israel, as many might think or imply, but that goes to all kingdoms. And we remember the story of Nebuchadnezzar, right? God rules over the kingdoms of men. He gives them to whomever he wills. God rules them, maintains them by his power and rules them by his ordinances. Second, sin has in the realm of politics broken down the direct government of God. And therefore the exercise of authority for the purpose of government has subsequently been invested in men as a mechanical as opposed to natural remedy. In other words, governments are imposed to protect the people, to act as ministers for good, but that's imposed upon the world order after the fall. And wasn't something that would have been instituted pre-fall, right? It's sin has broken down, as it were, the direct rule and reign of God. And we looked last week at that example in 1 Samuel chapter seven of the people of Israel, rejecting God as king over them and asking for a king like all the other nations. Third, in whatever form this authority, this governmental authority may reveal itself, man never possesses power over his fellow man in any way than by an authority which descends upon him from the majesty of God. In other words, even those governments that are instituted by God, in those governments, man is not to wield a power over another man that is not directly given him by authority from God. And what dictates and what directs that authority? The word of God, right? General revelation isn't enough to direct that authority or to govern the exercise of that authority. We need special revelation, we need God's word to dictate to men how governments are to operate and governments are not to intrude upon or encroach upon those rights that we have not given to us by government, right? Our rights are inalienable rights don't come from government. Our rights come from God and government is not to encroach upon those. That's the sphere of the state. Then we talked about the sphere of society or the social sphere made up of multiple different groups, four main groups, four main categories that each of those could fit into. One, the sphere of social relationships where individuals meet and interact with each other. Two, the corporate sphere, which includes all groupings of men in a corporate sense, such as universities, trade unions, employers, organizations, companies, those kinds of things. Third, the domestic sphere, which deals with family, marriage, education, personal property, right? And then fourth, as Kuiper conceives of this, the communal sphere, which includes all groupings of men in communal relationships, we see developing in history, such as streets, villages, neighborhoods, towns, cities, and so forth, okay? So four main groups of the sphere of society. Each of these spheres, Kuiper argues, has sovereignty in the individual social spheres and these different developments of social life have nothing above themselves but God. The state cannot, should not intrude here, Kuiper says. In society, the chief aim of all human effort remains what it was by virtue of our creation and before the fall, namely domination over nature. And Kuiper draws that from the cultural mandate given to us in Genesis chapter one, where man is to take dominion, right? We're to take dominion over all the earth. God's appointed vice regent, Adam, was to exercise God's authority on the planet to spread image bearers of God across the planet, thus spreading the glory of God over the face of the earth as the waters cover the sea. We were to, as a part of the cultural mandate, take dominion and then be fruitful and multiply. The state is not to intrude on an individual's exercise of that dominion. We are charged by God with the cultural mandate. The state shouldn't intrude. There's much more to it. This gives you a summary of sort of what Kuiper's thoughts were with respect to the church and the state or the sphere of the state, the sphere of the individual, the sphere of the church. And that should inform our understanding biblically of what the Bible has revealed to us in terms of how government should work or how we should relate to the state. But that is far from how things work today, right? So part of what we wanna do in talking about these things is think biblically the way that things were intended to be, the way that things should be biblically put limits and boundaries on the authority of each of these spheres, in particular the sphere of the state, so that we can understand more clearly where they have colored outside the lines, so to speak, right? If you look at a, you guys seen those adult coloring books? Sort of, I'm not sure I understand that. Adult coloring books, these adult coloring books with really sort of intricate drawings, these intricate things, but you're to color them, right? And they give you the lines in which to color. If you think about it in terms of that, the spheres each have lines, they have boundaries, biblically drawn boundaries, in which each sphere is to operate. And I think the lines, biblically drawn lines, if we're clear about where those lines are, then it becomes more clear, more clear to us when one sphere begins to color outside lines, so to speak, into or within the boundaries of another sphere. Really, really important when we deal with the state and our understanding of the state today. We don't want to be deceived by that, and we don't want to be simple-minded when it comes to that. God has given specific boundaries, and we want to be clear about where those boundaries are so that we can respond appropriately. I will submit to you, those boundaries have been woefully, tragically, and deplorably overrun by our government since its founding, and more so, much more so today. But helping us see that I think helps us recognize more the importance of a clear, biblical, public theology, so that we can be a very clear voice with respect to that in terms of our witness in the culture, okay? Lastly, then, we talk about the sphere of the state, the sphere of society. Lastly, there is the sphere of the church, and Kuiper includes the sphere of the individual under this heading, the sphere of the church. Kuiper argues that the government must suspend judgment in this area. The government must suspend judgment in the sphere in this area of the church, and allow divisions to exist among Christians because the government lacks the data of judgment and would infringe upon the sovereignty of the church and exercising authority within this sphere. And we see that throughout history, right? And after the Reformation, when in particular in England, King Henry VIII separates from the church of England because he wants his divorce, and he creates the state-run Anglican church over which he, the king, exercises sovereignty. Is King Henry the head of the church? No, he is colored outside the lines. He has woefully, tragically exceeded his boundary in presuming to be head of the church. Who is the head of the church? Jesus Christ is the head of the church. And there have been people, John Hus, the first I remember of those, that was martyred for making that assertion that Jesus Christ, not the king, is the head of the church. Well, when there were those who dissented from the Anglican church, who were persecuted, there would be a Catholic king or a Catholic queen who had come in would persecute, martyr, murder, all the Protestants and make the country Catholic again, and then a Protestant king would come in, make the country Protestant once again. What's the problem? Government taking on an authority that does not belong to government. And so Kuiper recognizes this, our founding fathers recognize this, and so laws passed to maintain the boundary between the sphere of the state and the sphere of the church. The state, Kuiper says, cannot intrude here. The chief aim of all human effort remains what it was by virtue of our creation and before the fall. Okay, Kuiper's motto then became, in his conception, his public theology, became a free church for a free state, a free church for a free state. Kuiper thought that when the state began to encroach upon of the boundaries given to it by God in scripture, began to encroach upon the boundaries of the sphere of the church, that tyranny was inevitable. And that that tyranny would eventually lead to a despotic exercise of authority or authoritarianism. And we see that true, certainly in Europe during the time of the Reformation frequently, but also throughout history in revolutions that have taken place in history, the French Revolution, not long after the Reformation, the time of the Reformation, the Bolshevik Revolution, the start of the 19th century or the 20th century, the revolutions in China. And since then, multiple times in history, we've seen a tyrannical or authoritarian government encroaching upon the sphere of the church and that leading to a despotic authoritarianism over the people. So Kuiper's motto, a free church for a free state that religious freedom is the basis on which nations maintain freedom, maintain liberty, and that there's a right wielding of power. That is true also in the sense that, again, Jesus Christ is Lord over all of life, not just the church. Over all, God rules in the kingdoms of men, He gives them to whomever He wills. And so for a right ordering of those spheres and a right ordering, a biblical ordering of human government, it must be maintained that the state operate within its boundaries and not encroach upon the sphere of the church. And when the state begins to encroach upon the sphere of this church, tyranny is the inevitable result. And so we're going to maintain a free state if even if lost people in this world want to maintain a free state, they need to understand that is going to exist and only exist under a free church or within cooperation with a free church. And when religious liberty, and we're seeing that happen even now, when religious liberty is encroached upon, violated, we see tyranny and the spread of tyranny. And it's just astounding to me like how pervasively that has spread in particular in the last year, in the last two years, five years. And now seeing, it's shocking to me, the number of pastors being arrested in Canada and churches being shuttered, gated, fenced, unreal. You had asked me five years ago, 10 years ago, somebody had said that would happen and happen in large numbers, would have thought you were crazy, would not have imagined, but here we are. Regarding the individual under the sphere of the church, Kuiper says sovereignty of the individual person, Kuiper argues that his conscience is never subject to man, but always and ever to God Almighty. And one of the reasons that Kuiper includes the individual under the sphere of the church is because man's conscience is subject to God Almighty and God rules and administers his reign through the church. Okay, let's talk about the church for a moment with respect to the sovereignty, the sphere sovereignty of the church. Churches are autonomous, auto namas, auto meaning self, namas meaning law. Churches are to be autonomous. Autonomous means self governing or self directing, self governing or self directing, all of that under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. In other words, within the sphere of the church, there is nothing above the church, but the Lord Jesus Christ, nothing above the church but God, right? Churches in that sense are autonomous. They do not come into the control of the state or any hierarchical body or any para church organization. There is no hierarchy, churches are autonomous. Now you, in this day, we can see what we would consider to be a, what we would call a hypercontinuity with Old Testament law, a hypercontinuity with the Mosaic Covenant in, for example, an institution like the Roman Catholic Church. Roman Catholic Church maintains, if you will, or attempts to, has attempted to, in history, maintain a modern day theocracy. They have a magisterium or a ruling class. They have a hierarchy of elders, ecclesiastical rulers, and what we would consider state rulers, priesthood, a functioning priesthood. They are, in essence, attempting and used to with more control over the state wielded a power that was too, with too much continuity to Old Testament Israel. So we would consider, like Catholicism, a hypercontinuity, but also a form of hypercontinuity is Presbyterianism and their hierarchy of church government. That hierarchy doesn't exist in scripture, but we see it as a more of a bit of hypercontinuity, trying to maintain too much continuity with Old Testament structures. Churches are to be autonomous, self-governing, self-directing. Baptists have always asserted the autonomy of the local church. Autonomy means that the church, solely under the lordship of Jesus Christ, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the church selects its pastoral leadership, the church appoints deacons, church determines its worship. The church decides financial matters. Church admits members, exercises discipline, directs other church-related affairs without outside control or supervision under the lordship of Jesus Christ. And that has to be the way that it is. According to the Bible, we're to order our affairs within the sphere of our own, under the sovereignty of our own sphere, so to speak, and under the guidance and direction of the Holy Spirit. Being autonomous, then, a church recognizes no governmental control over faith and religious practice. And I want us to be really bold, confident, and clear about that. Being autonomous, a church recognizes no governmental control over faith and religious practice. Now, does the state, does the state have a delegated authority with interest in what a church does or how a church operates? To some degree, a state would, right? If, for example, you've seen probably news reports or documentaries about some cult in some middle of nowhere in Arizona where you've got a few absurdly wicked men who are abusing women or abusing children. And does the state have a vested interest in the safety of those women, the safety of those children? Absolutely they do. And the state rightly goes in there as a minister of good and wields the sword to take care of that, right? The state would have a vested right in that kind of a circumstance. So we don't limit the state's fear when it comes to our operation. And so we word that carefully, that the government has no control over faith and religious practice. When it comes to the safety, the well-being of its citizens, the state has a vested interest. And we would respect that, obviously. In that sense, there is this overlapping of the spheres that is just and right that we have to continue and need to continue to recognize there is this overlapping, this good overlapping of the spheres. Does the church have an interest in the state? Yes. And we're gonna talk about that in a minute. There is the institutional church, which should wield no direct influence over the state in terms of the institutional church doesn't wield a power over appointing governors or appointing mayors or appointing, right? We're to exercise no direct authority over the sphere of government in that sense. But the church is to speak to the government with respect to how the government exercises their authority. He said, what directs, limits, guides the government into their exercise of their rightful authority. What governs directs them? The word of God does. And we have a declarative role as the church to declare the word of God into that sphere when the government begins to act in ways that are contrary to the word of God. But we also have what Kuiper called the organic church. And the organic church is each individual member. And as each individual member goes outside the four walls of the church into whatever sphere they occupy, whether that is the sphere of their vocation or the sphere of education or the sphere of government, that individual church member, that individual Christian is to bring their activity within that sphere under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and to influence that sphere for the Lord Jesus Christ. So there is a direct influence that the organic church wields or exercises in the sphere of the state, okay? Being autonomous, a church recognizes no governmental control over faith and religious practice. Although churches obey the laws of governments related to certain matters, they refuse, rightly refuse to recognize the authority of governments in matters of doctrine, in matters of polity and in matters of ministry. And oftentimes with respect to the sphere of the church and its relationship to the state, there are several texts that we reference in the New Testament. We're gonna look at all of those texts in the course of this study together. Several texts, but one in particular is Matthew chapter 22 where the Lord says to those Pharisees that came to question him, render to Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God, those things which are God's, right? There is a legitimate authority that Caesar wields. We're not arguing that, but there are boundaries on that authority. We are to render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God the things that are God's. Baptists have consistently rejected the efforts of any secular government entity to dictate to a church what to believe, how to worship or who should or should not be members. And that goes with respect to anything, okay? So let me give you an example. And this hits a little closer to home, but I think it's important to acknowledge the fine points of this issue, mask orders or COVID restrictions on the church. Fundamentally, a government has no jurisdiction to dictate to a church how we are going to worship, when we're going to worship, who we're going to worship with or in what way we worship. Simply has no jurisdiction. That does not negate the responsibility of the state to protect its citizens. And so the state can in May, and it's even, it's constitutionally questionable, but constitutionally upheld, that there are certain circumstances in which the state may impose a mask mandate, for example. Now, you can question whether or not it's, you know, constitutionally provable that we're actually in a pandemic or not. You know, those things can be argued in the public sphere, they're gonna be people who believe on one side or another. Reality is, is the state made a mandate and you can challenge that mandate by going to the courts, if you will, all those things within that sphere of the state, within the sphere of the state. That can all be argued. However, the constitution allows us to argue. You can go to Congress for a redress of grievances, right? However, within the sphere of the church, the state has no jurisdiction over how we're going to worship or what our worship is going to look like. They have no jurisdiction to dictate to the church the parameters of our worship. The leadership of the church, the church itself is autonomous in its jurisdiction over parameters of worship. And so, for example, when the state here made the determination last year, it's been more than a year ago now. It's crazy to me, amazing. How quickly this year's gone and in some cases, how really slow this year's gone. But it's been over a year now since our state issued a policy 30 days to stop the spread. You guys remember that? 30 days to stop the spread. Well, the state has no jurisdiction to close down churches, period. However, we decided we want to be good neighbors. Well, we want to love for our neighbor, love for the Lord Jesus Christ, love for you, love for our brothers and sisters. We want to do our part. And so we made the determination that it would be wise and prudent in helping with the interests of the state in making decisions to protect its citizenry, that we would help with that and would accommodate the 30 days to stop the spread. So what do we do? We went online. We had services online for that 30 days and you stayed home and we preached to an empty room here and broadcast that. It was absolutely intolerable, intolerable. Just go home after a service on Sunday and weep. You know, I'm sick and tired of it, you know? It became very obvious at the end of that 30 days that it wasn't going to be 30 days, right? And that, among other things that became very obvious to us, which was also an encroaching authoritarianism of the state using this, our present circumstances as opportunistically as they could to expand their authority, so to speak. And so we determined that that wasn't good, right or prudent for God's people to restrict the worship of God's people, to restrict the worship of God who is sovereign over all of these things. And so at the end of that 30 days, we made a decision that we're done with that. And so we came back, it's been over a year now, we came back to full worship. Where I'm asked if you want to, that is a matter of Christian liberty, but we're not going to dictate how God's people are to worship. And so don't wear a mask if you don't want to. We're gonna come, we're gonna worship with a clear conscience before God as God intended and trust the Lord with what happened. So we decided at that time it was a matter of Christian liberty, how one conducts themselves with respect to that. And we as the church, we're going to worship as we're called to biblically. So we've been open now for over a year and with full open with hugging, right? So as is right, we're only the holy kiss thing, but it's more cultural, but the hug certainly. Okay, and why is that? Why is that? Because we recognize limits to government jurisdiction, boundaries to government's jurisdiction. And churches, and that's not to say that the argument could be made that we decided wrong on that, that's fine, right? People will decide differently. They are responsible to make their decisions with a clear conscience before God, just as we are responsible to make our own decisions with a clear conscience before God. We're not subject to men's rules, we're subject to God. And so we made the decisions that we made and believe those to be wise, prudent, and right biblically. Other churches may have made other decisions that differed, that's between them and God. They make their decisions with a clear conscience before God as well. So it doesn't mean that because we did one thing that means every other church that decided differently was wrong. Now each, you know, we're responsible to make our own decisions and each one needs to, with a clear conscience before God do what seems most wise and prudent and biblical, God honoring to them, okay? So it's not to denigrate the decisions of other churches. The government has no jurisdiction, that's the issue. Churches relate to each other in terms of fellowship, holding community together, that and the cause of the gospel, but no individual group, no organization outside the autonomous church exercises authority over them. Soloscriptura, the Bible is our supreme authority in all matters of faith and practice and the regulative principle, which we've talked about in here now a few times applies. The regulative principle applies. Our worship, our doctrine, our practice as a church is directly governed by what we find in the scriptures and not subject to the opinions of men or the commandments of men or the traditions of men. We're to subject our tradition, so to speak, to the Bible. The New Testament recognizes no para-church organization. This is bottom line, it is what it is. The New Testament recognizes no para-church hierarchical or governmental structure. Therefore, autonomous churches are responsible for church order, including self-governance. Autonomous churches are responsible for their own governance. Now, all of that within the sphere, again, the sphere of the church is what we're talking about. That autonomy is recognized by the state. The state recognizes that autonomy. There is something that's called the church autonomy doctrine, or you'll hear it in court cases as an ecclesiastical abstention, an ecclesiastical abstention. And that is asserted in the courts and it's asserted on the basis of the First Amendment and the establishment clause, right? The ecclesiastical abstention or the church autonomy doctrine, that's a state-understood doctrine. It's something that's been upheld in the courts by the state. The state recognizes that it has no jurisdictional judgment over church affairs. It doesn't have the knowledge base in which to make judgments in ecclesiastical affairs. So the state recognizes in that its limits, the limits on its sphere, rightly so, and the state limits its jurisdiction, rightly, through this church autonomy doctrine or ecclesiastical abstention. It establishes a constitutional denial of jurisdiction. And oftentimes when cases go to court, you'll hear that argued a lot of times before it ever makes it to trial. You'll hear a motion to deny based on ecclesiastical abstention or denial of jurisdiction. And that's grounded in the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. Rational is this. Courts do not have the competence or the capacity to decide questions of doctrine. Courts do not have the competence or the capacity to decide questions of doctrine. Civil courts must not make what amounts to religious pronouncements. And there you have to be really, really careful. That violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Courts are not to make what amounts to religious pronouncements. You must not sing in worship because singing spreads COVID. No. Now this is upheld by several cases, probably the most recent or the most cited recently is a New Jersey court case in 2002, McKelvie versus Pierce. And out of McKelvie versus Pierce, you have this language. The doctrine, the church autonomy doctrine is rooted in both of the religious clauses in the First Amendment, protecting a church's freedom to regulate its own internal affairs by prohibiting civil court review of internal church disputes involving matters of faith, doctrine, church governance and polity. The state rightly recognizes that limitation. The essence of church autonomy is that the church should be run by duly constituted authorities, church authorities, and not by legislators, administrative agencies, labor unions, disgruntled laypeople or other actors, lacking authority under church law, rightly defining a limit of jurisdiction between the sphere of the state and the sphere of the church. This is all in keeping with Abraham Kiper's sphere sovereignty. And it's something that our founding fathers thought of ahead of time in setting up our government. And when the Bill of Rights was passed, thinking about these spheres and the proper boundaries on their authority, church autonomy is also rooted in case law that affirms the fundamental right of churches to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine. Ecclesiastical protection for a church arises solely from membership and the consent by the person to be governed by the church. Okay. Now that is upheld in numerous cases, but probably one of the most prevalent ways in which that has been upheld is when it comes to cases of church discipline. Church discipline, very difficult, very difficult. And this is a church that practices church discipline. The Bible is really clear, really clear about church discipline, for example, gives us specific and clear instructions for what to do and how to practice church discipline. And for us to simply ignore the multiple texts that deal specifically with church discipline is gross disobedience on our part. And you end up losing, you forfeit the right to be called a church if you're not gonna practice church discipline. One of the nine marks of a healthy church that Deborah outlines in that book is a proper understanding, a biblical understanding and a practice of church discipline. The church discipline, as you can imagine, the church is its own court, if you will, in matters of doctrine and practice and has authority to exercise or to wield a certain, really the only way to describe it, is certain what comes across as punitive measure to call someone to repentance or to call someone to turn from their sin. And that is step three of church discipline, telling it to the church. And then step four of church discipline, which is putting them out of the church. And both of those steps, we understand here, operate with teeth, those are difficult, they're not easy circumstances to go through, very difficult. And sometimes, what people tend to do, angry, disgruntled, people who are under church discipline or have been the subjects of church discipline, may decide that they're going to seek redress with the courts and not recognize the authority of the church as the highest authority when it comes to that issue of discipline. And so they sue, they sue. And routinely, what have the courts done with respect to churches that practice church discipline? The courts have upheld the jurisdictional boundaries between church and state and have refused to intrude upon the decisions of a church with respect to discipline, rightly so, right, rightly so. So this establishment clause, this ecclesiastical abstention, gets exercised on a regular basis in the courts, in particular with respect to church discipline, okay? Now that arises out of membership. That's one of the reasons why we, one of many reasons why we have a formal church membership here, but also the courts recognize, you guys have heard the term common law marriage before, right, common law marriage. There is a sense in which the courts recognize common law membership. When someone is here and they voluntarily, that's what submission to a church should be and is, is voluntary submission. When you join a church, you're voluntarily submitting yourself to serve in that church, love those people, the work in that place, serve the Lord with those people. You're voluntarily submitting yourself. The courts recognize a voluntary submission to a church when you continue to come, even though you've not pursued or have not gone through a formal membership process. So it's a common law membership, if you will. And in those cases, the courts have recognized a limit on their jurisdiction and have recognized the autonomy of the local church and deciding matters of faith and practice. And I think it's really, really important. Okay. Three spheres then, three spheres. Sphere of the state, the social sphere and the sphere of the church, right? Primary spheres. Each of those having multiple parts. But Abraham Kuiper, theology of public life, summarizes public theology in the Christian's relationship to those three spheres. All three spheres exist under the absolute sovereignty of the Lord Jesus Christ, who himself has all authority. And the authorities that are given to those spheres are authorities that are delegated by the Lord Jesus Christ himself. And none of those spheres are under the authority of the church. The state is not under the authority of the church. The individual is not exclusively under the authority of the church, because the individual has freedom of conscience, right? And the social sphere is not under the absolute authority of the church. Those three spheres exist as it were autonomously, but with overlap. All right. In addition, as Kuiper is working out his theology of public life, Kuiper following in the thinking of the reformers saw that redemption, the redemption provided by the Son or secured by the Lord Jesus Christ, not only for individual Christians who've been redeemed or individual image bearers who would be redeemed, the elect, but redemption also extends to the whole of creation. And this is gonna become important to Kuiper's public theology and should influence also our public theology. I'll turn with me to Romans chapter eight. Let's look at that Romans chapter eight. The idea that redemption, the redemption that is accomplished by the Son includes not only the redemption of the individual, but the redemption of the created order, the redemption of, as Kuiper would put it, the redemption of nature, that grace restores nature. That became a framework in which Kuiper began to think of his public theology. And we see that exemplified in Romans chapter eight, right? Look at verse 18, Romans chapter eight, verse 18. For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. Incidentally, I'm not gonna have, I'm gonna say this now because I'm not gonna have time during the service this morning. I'm not gonna have time to develop this pointfully. When the glory which shall be revealed in us, Paul says in Romans chapter two that in God's retributive judgment, retribution is either reward or wrath, reward or punishment, right? Retribution. To the one who is that he, Paul describes there as good, they're rewarded so to speak with eternal life. And we're gonna explain that this morning in the sermon. They're rewarded with eternal life. Eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality, okay? That doesn't mean that that one seeks glory for himself, okay? When Paul says there, he seeks for glory, honor, and immortality, I'm going to get glory for myself. No, right? I'm gonna be glorified. People are gonna look at me and how righteous I am. No, I mean, that's like ridiculous. No, it's not for, it's not, it's contrasted with the one in the very next verse, verse nine, I believe it is, who is self-seeking and does not obey the truth, but obeys unrighteousness, right? We're not self-seeking in that glory. So what does it mean when that one seeks for glory? It's seeking for this glory, right, this glory. I consider that the sufferings of this present time, we suffer now, but this suffering, this momentary light affliction, as Paul says, is not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. What is that glory? It's the glory of our inheritance, the glory of who we are in Jesus Christ that in that day will be revealed to his glory, not my glory, right? It'll be revealed to his glory what we are. We shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. That's the glory that we seek, right? It's not a self-seeking glory, not a self-aggrandizement. We're not self-seeking. So maybe I'll make that point again in the sermon. It depends on how fast you guys listen. Okay, four, back on point here, verse 19, for the earnest expectation of the creation. This is interesting, isn't it? The earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. All of creation is conceived of here as eagerly anticipating the redemption of the sons of God, the redemption of the sons of glory, right? The redemption of the human race. The creation right now groans under the sin and corruption of the human race. It's as if the air that sinful, corrupt human beings breathe in go into their lungs reluctantly, groaning. And I have to sustain this corruption one moment longer, right? And even that air groans, awaiting for the redemption of the sons of glory. As if the earth groans in producing food for these corrupt, fallen, sinful human beings that have marred the glory of God in creation, right? Four, verse 20, the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it in hope, because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. So even creation is subjected in hope, hope of what? Liberty, right? Liberty, the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know verse 22, that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now, not only that, but we also who have the first fruits of the spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly awaiting the adoption, the redemption of our body, groan. I woke up this morning groaning. I want a glorified body, looking forward to it. Please Lord, verse 24, for we were saved in this hope. It's the hope that we share with creation as it were, but hope that is seen as not hope. Why do we hope for it, right? We still hope for what he sees. We haven't realized that yet. It hasn't been given to us yet, but it's coming. It's going to be given to us if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly, eagerly wait for it with perseverance, okay? In Kuiper's theology of public life, Kuiper included this understanding that even the creation groans to be transformed. We're gonna see that transformation soon. I think soon. We're gonna see that transformation with the new heavens and the new earth, where this earth, these heavens will be transformed, and that will be at the glorious liberty of the sons of God. When Jesus Christ returns, the elements will melt with a fervent heat and he will remake the heavens and the earth. As he intended, as the glorious stage upon which the sons of glory reflect the glory of their maker, right? That's what's going to happen. And Kuiper, as we do, views the new covenant as an ushering in of that future glory. In other words, there is, thank you, brother. You guys have listened faster. Somebody take the batteries out of that clock. The new covenant has ushered in the now and the already, the eventual not yet of that glory. Does that make sense? There is an already and a not yet. The, that kingdom, that glory, that transformation has been inaugurated. And listen, it's been inaugurated in you who are a new creation, right? It's been inaugurated in you who are now sons of the kingdom and it's been inaugurated in the spread of the kingdom upon the earth as God during this time gathers him in his elect from the four corners of the earth through the preaching of the gospel, right? Gospels being preached, sons of the glory are coming in, new creations being made. God has instituted a new creation, a new thing, a new exodus out of bondage. He's instituted that onto the earth now and things are the kingdom is spreading and it's being transformed. Starts out as a mustard seed, something tiny, but that eventually grows into a tree where the birds of the air come and nest, right? Something small now, but spreading into something that's tremendous, something that's huge. All of that should influence the way that we think about a public theology, our public theology in the sense that you are agents of the kingdom, sons of glory and you should, I should, we should have a transformative effect on this world as the kingdom of God spreads. Does that make sense? That should impact the way that we think about government, school, our work, our vocation. Khyber uses several examples, but think about your job, your job. You are an agent for the Lord Jesus Christ in your vocation. You are to consider how sin has marred and corrupted that sphere in which you find yourself working and you're to consider how you, as a transformative agent, new creation of the Lord Jesus Christ, should bring the word of God, not just general revelation, not sufficient enough, how you should bring the word of God to bear within your sphere to change that and to bring it under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, right? And that is your responsibility. That is an outworking, if you will, a new covenant outworking of the cultural mandate. So yes, we are to preach the gospel. It involves preaching the gospel in your sphere, but it also involves a witness with the word of God at your sphere. In other words, I preach the gospel to him and so I'll listen to him cuss up a blue streak all day long because I preach the gospel to him and that's not really my, you know what I'm doing. No, you should be a transformative agent, right? I've heard you, many of you say before. Yeah, in work, when we go to those meetings, yeah, people don't cuss because they know I'm a Christian. And so the way they conduct their staff meeting is a little different because they know that I'm there. They probably resent it, but they conduct it differently. Good, good, you should be a walking rebuke to Godless people when you enter your sphere as an influence for righteousness upon that area, wherever it is that you walk into. Does that make sense? So Kuiper began to think of his public theology in that way, we're out of time. So we'll continue to talk about this a little bit more next week, get into our next session. We're gonna start looking at Romans chapter 14 next week, 13, we'll deal with that. But suffice it to say for now, Kuiper saw Christians, we should, the Bible, I think depicts Christians as transformative agents in the world. Our lives lived, quorum deo under the gaze of God. Christians are to think in what way has sin corrupted this sphere and how should I influence it for the Lordship of Jesus Christ? And that goes really with Christians being engaged in every sphere, including government. And that was Kuiper's point. We should have not just the indirect authority of the church influencing the sphere of state, but the organic direct influence of the people of God as they spread into the sphere of the state to influence that sphere for the Lordship of Jesus Christ. We have a responsibility to do that. A love for neighbor and a love for the Lord compels us to witness in that way in each of those spheres. Certainly preaching the gospel, but having an influence with our witness that goes along with preaching the gospel, if that makes sense. Kuiper, in short, everything is his. His kingdom is over everything. His kingdom is a kingdom of all ages, of all spheres, of all creatures. If God's sovereign authority holds for every sphere of life and if his word is relevant to every sphere, then politics and the public square are no exception. Kuiper exemplified this conviction in his own life. He drew upon the grace, restores, nature framework in order to shape his understanding of politics and the public sphere. Every sphere is under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. All right, we're out of time. We'll talk more next week and get into Romans 13. Pray with me. Father in heaven, Lord, thank you again, Lord, for the sufficiency of your word, the clarity of your word. Help us, Lord, to think clearly about how your word applies in these circumstances and help us, Lord, be faithful to you as the torch has been passed to us, so to speak, in our generation. Help us to be faithful to you as we seek to preach the gospel and influence this world for the cause of Christ. For his glory, we pray these things in Jesus' name, amen.