by
J. Glenn Friesen
©2018
Abstract
Jonathan Chaplin’s analysis of Dooyeweerd’s philosophy is helpful in discussing (1) the state’s role in harmonizing and protecting individual and communal interests within various societal spheres and (2) Dooyeweerd’s ideas of public justice and public interest, which he uses to justify state intervention in other societal organizations. But Chaplin continues a conservative reading of Dooyeweerd. This is due to (a) his misunderstanding of the ideas of individuality structures and enkapsis (b) his misunderstanding of enkaptic relations among institutions, natural communities, organized communities and free associations, (c) a consequent incorrect distinction between internal and external functions of the state and (d) an inadequate discussion of the idea of human rights. Dooyeweerd’s use of enkapsis allows him to develop a view of societal sphere sovereignty very different from that of Abraham Kuyper, and one that allows the intervention of the state in other societal organizations because there is a one-way enkaptic relationship
And:
by Glenn Friesen
©2018
Abstract
Many writers claim to follow reformational principles, but have used these principles in very regressive and reactionary ways to support and to promote the political ideas of the religious right. They have used ideas of religious presuppositionalism, worldview and religious antithesis to argue that those who do not share their own worldview do not know the true facts. They have misused the idea of sphere sovereignty to argue for the minimal state. And they have rejected the idea of human rights and have discriminated against others. This complicity with right wing politics has become clearly evident in their support for the policies of President Trump.
Also, Glenn's piece I've mentioned before is now online: New Research on Groen van Prinsterer and the Idea of Sphere Sovereignty Philosophia Reformata
