It is common in discussions among Protestants about rightly
ordering social policy to make references to “a Protestant version of
subsidiarity.” Subsidiarity is the
concept that nothing should be done by a larger and more complex social
institution that could be done by a smaller and simpler one. This idea has
great implications for the welfare state for example, where centralization of
control is disfavored when matters can be addressed more locally.
This concept suggests the values of federalism, where some things
that can only be accomplished effectively nationally, such as military defense,
ought to be done nationally. But regulations than can be done locally, such as
setting education policy, are best done locally where government leaders are
more responsive to local needs. Human
beings flourish if activity is administered as close to the individual as
practical wisdom suggests.
Subsidiarity addresses far more than just political
subdivisions, however. It also applies between the state and other social
entities. The government ought not to do those things that could be done by voluntary
associations, and voluntary associations ought not to address matters that can
be undertaken by the family. Within families, there is great flexibility in
addressing social needs, but in a well-ordered family, even the family tends
not to take on tasks that can be effectively and lovingly accomplished by the
individual. The very word “subsidiarity”
flips the common understanding of the modern state. The term refers to the fact
that big central authorities are subsidiary to the small and local.
Subsidiarity is undeniably rooted in Catholic social
thought. While it was developed before
the 20th Century, it was most clearly articulated and incorporated
into Catholic thought by Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Quadragesimo Anno in 1931. The concept has enriched Christian political
discussion, but was not well-known in Protestant circles before the 1980s, when
Pope John Paul II addressed the issue. Protestants tended to be receptive to Catholic
social teaching when this very popular Pope disseminated his views. Notably,
however, the underlying idea of subsidiarity is assumed in Scripture, as it is
implied, for example, in the treatment of widows in I Timothy 5.
Protestants have also
contributed to a Christian understanding of social policy. Arising out of
Calvinistic emphasis on God’s sovereignty, a view most closely associated with
the early 20th Century Dutch Prime Minister Abraham Kuyper, is that
of “sphere sovereignty.” Under this teaching, since Jesus Christ is sovereign
over every aspect of life, each aspect of human existence has a direct and
equal obligation to God. Thus, each part
of life has an appropriate “sphere” of duty, which is directly owed to God.
This is applied most significantly to the role of the state. The state ought
not to be addressing matters that God has left to the family, and ought not to
be involved in overseeing matters that are the Church’s responsibility. This
fits neatly with the American idea of separation of Church and state, a concept
advanced by the US Supreme Court by the time of Everson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 (1947).
Sphere
sovereignty is undeniably Protestant, and even more narrowly Calvinistic, in
origin. It is not an idea that is addressed in Catholic social teaching. What subsidiarity and sphere sovereignty have
in common is that they are both perspectives on rightly ordering society to
conform to God’s will. Beyond that, however, they both contribute to the
conversation about social policy in different ways. They are not two ways of
saying the same thing. And yet, they are not opposed to each other either.
Visually, one could say that sphere sovereignty is horizontal in focus,
aligning all social institutions on the same plane before God. Subsidiarity is
vertical in focus, aligning institutions by size, and seeking to move control
to the smallest unit as practical wisdom indicates.
Given this, it is
possible to apply both concepts to matters of social concern: even within
spheres of life, localism is favored.
For example, punishment for violation of law falls within the sphere of
the state, but within that sphere, it is better that the pronouncement of law,
and its application of a penalty, is best if done as locally as possible.
It is
understandable that subsidiarity would resonate with Roman Catholics, and
sphere sovereignty would resonate with Protestants. Underlying subsidiarity is
an appreciation of hierarchy, which aligns with Catholic Church authority.
Sphere sovereignty, on the other hand, has an egalitarian component that tends
to resonate with Protestants.
In recent years,
there has been an increased suggestion in Christian public policy discourse to
refer to sphere sovereignty as the Protestant form of subsidiarity. But it is
not. If the use of the adjective “Catholic” here were only directed towards the
origin of the concept, it would be accurate. But the implication is that both subsidiarity
and sphere sovereignty address the same ideas, but whereas Catholics should
look to subsidiarity because it is palatable and comprehensible to them,
Protestants should look to sphere sovereignty for the same reasons in their
context.
This approach is
harmful to both Catholics and Protestants. The implication that each should
look to their own social philosophers has cost us. Protestants have failed to
deeply consider the value of subsidiarity because of a feeling that they should
root for the home team on social policy by just concentrating on sphere
sovereignty. Catholics have not much applied sphere sovereignty for similar
reasons. Both parts of the Christian
world have suffered for this.
The Protestant
version of subsidiarity is. . . subsidiarity. There is nothing in this teaching
that violates Protestant understanding of theology, and it should be
incorporated into Protestant social discourse because of its tremendous
contribution to Protestant social teaching. So also, sphere sovereignty is of
value to Cathoics, and worthy of consideration in Catholic teaching.
Generally, we
don’t attach denominational adjectives to doctrine or teaching that is common
across the Christian Church. For example, we don’t speak of a Catholic doctrine
of the Trinity and Protestant version, since the views of both are held in
common. The addition of the denominational qualifier is apt when addressing
matters that are truly distinct, such as attitudes towards the magisterium of
the Church. In using these descriptors when addressing social policy, we imply
that subsidiarity and sphere sovereignty ought to be viewed disjunctively,
where there is no reason to do so. They
are in harmony, and can be considered together to enrich understanding.
For this reason,
when asked about what the Protestant version of subsidiarity is, Protestants
can all truthfully say it is identical to the Catholic version of subsidiarity.