Assuming there is a legitimate place for some form of government aid in times of crisis (and notable theologians like John Frame and others agree with this), there is a fundamental temporariness to it as well.
For the Dutch theologian, Abraham Kuyper, we should resist the excessive aid of government to allow the natural spheres of families and religious bodies to exert their function in society. As the American experiment has proven, the intervention of the state in the economic affairs of its people in dire times leads to an increased need for such intervention in simpler times. When that happens, the Church and the household (oikos) fail to exercise their rightful role in restoring the needy to an environment where flourishing is possible.
The current pandemic serves as an illustration that many in the government sphere are seeking to use these times as the means to implement their vision. There is no neutrality even in these strange times. Facts are not brute. They are interpreted by deeply held views of the world. For those who are eager to see the government usurp their authority over other spheres, this is the opportune time. As de Blasio said, “We need the federal government to make us whole before we restart.” This religious expression is a clear indication of the sacramental imprint certain politicians wish to see applied on the country as a whole.
When such philosophies prosper, Kuyper’s sphere sovereignty becomes unbalanced and the government is free to interfere in the affairs of church and house. One Harvard apologists recently sought to cast doubt on the practice of homeschooling. By simply posing the question of whether homeschooling is risky, such apologists are seeking to raise national skepticism over the function of biological families to educate their own tribe as they see fit. “Did God really say it is the fundamental duty of parents to train their children in the nurture and admonition of his Name?”
While there is a limited and temporary role for the federal government to exercise, such role must not trespass its boundary. We begin to lose that battle when such questions are allowed to be raised without dispute. If we allow it, we are irresponsible citizens and the sovereignty of spheres is quickly violated. If, however, we continue to stress the necessity of charitable bodies to operate as ordinary distributors for the well-being of peoples, we will have at least a chance of avoiding the inherent intrusionary nature of the state.
