This article is an adaptation of a talk I gave at the Dominion of Canada Conference. Resources from that conference are available at their website: https://3rproject.ca/
The relationship between church and state is often captured by the phrase, “the separation of church and state.” Today, this pithy phrase is largely misunderstood with most people turning its meaning on its head. The phrase was originally coined to keep the state out of the church, but now it is employed to keep God out of the state.
Sadly, modern Christians and non-Christians tend to be in harmony together in wanting this modern notion of separation of church and state in our country today. The non-Christian is concerned about the “corruption” of the state with religious values, and the Christian is concerned about the “corruption” of the church with the state’s values. And so many go on thinking that God can have his church, but he should keep his nose out of the government. But this won’t do. The title “King of kings and Lord of lords” is not just a meaningless ceremonial title but describes Christ’s rightful authority over both the church and the state.
History
The relationship between church and state should be clear in our minds. After all, the church and state have existed together for two millennia. In that time, we’ve seen various relations between the two—along with the consequences of getting it wrong and the blessing of getting it right. Allow me to give a brief historical sketch of church/state relations.
First, there was a period we can call an ecclesiocracy (rule by the church). The papal states existed from 756–1870. During this time, the Pope assumed the authority to collect taxes, issue laws, regulate agriculture, the arts, guilds, and even maintain his own army. The rule of the church was concentrated in Rome with its vestiges remaining in the modern Vatican City.
Outside of Italy and these papal states, the church/state relation was one called ultramontanism—literally, “beyond the mountains” (referring to the Alps). Ultramontanism meant loyalty is ultimately with the Pope in Rome rather than with local, national or state authorities. Outside Italy there was constant friction concerning who had the right to appoint bishops. In addition, the Pope, as the head of the church, also claimed the right to depose “wicked” kings but often lacked the military might to back it up.
Third, as kings rebelled against ecclesiocracy and ultramontanism, they asserted their right over the church. One example of this was in England when King Henry VIII used the reformation as an opportunity to claim headship of the church, forming the Anglican church or the Church of England. In this way, the king, rather than the pope, was now head of church. This arrangement was called erastianism (name after its most ardent defender, Erastus).
Finally, in the fight between an ecclesiocracy and erastianism, the reformation—being at its core, a back to the Bible movement—brought biblical clarity. The reformers promoted the idea of two kingdoms, or separation of powers, where the state and church had unique roles and responsibilities, serving side by side but both under God and informed by his word. The church and state are distinct and work together for both the physical and spiritual good of the people they serve. As Puritans and non-conformists fled either a church-run state, or a state-run church, they came to the new world with a vision of toleration, separation of powers, and coined the idea of separation of church and state.
History in Canada
Canada has a mixed history when it comes to the relationship between church and state. In the colonial era we had French Roman Catholics and English Protestants. The protestants in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, PEI had an established church by law, the Church of England—an erastian relationship. In Lower Canada, or Quebec, the Roman church was the established church, collecting its own taxes and maintaining its own laws. Upper Canada (Ontario) did not have an established church but was a “soft-establishment,” setting aside one-seventh of all public land for the support of Protestant clergy.
After the colonial period and the founding of Canada (1867), ideas of separation of church and state had gained traction. Despite this distinction between church and state, this period can properly be called “Christian Canada.” Canada was a Christian country even though there was no state religion or establishment of any church. Christianity infused nearly every aspect of public life. Churches ran hospitals, orphanages, and schools. In politics, the Christian consensus heavily influenced laws like the Lord’s Day Acts, alcohol sales, divorce, and marriage. In this arrangement, there was cooperation without confusion—a separation of church and state under God.
The age of Christian Canada came to an end in the 1960s and the Quiet Revolution. In Quebec, the provincial government took over the social bureaucracy (education and healthcare) previously run by the Roman church. This influenced the rest of Canada as a process of secularization, multiculturalism, and individualism took hold and was promoted by the government. This secularization was not rooted in Christian thought, but liberal secularism rooted in individual rights or humanism. In this worldview, both the church and God are commonly seen as against individual rights and repress rather than liberate a people. Coinciding with this secularization, immigration saw a diversified religious population come to Canada including Sikhs, Muslims, and Hindus. Multiculturalism, adopted in 1971 and codified in the Charter (section 27), promoted cultural and religious diversity as a strength.
In this milieu of secularization and religious pluralism, the state claims the position of neutrality, i.e., the state neither favors nor disadvantages any religion (or non-religion). But while that sounds good, the state is actually in the position of supremacy. What unifies a religiously diverse people? The state. Who determines which religious values are common and what’s tolerable? The state. Who determines what accommodation looks like? The state. Who is the standard for law with diverse value systems? The state.
Therefore, when you separate the state from God, the state becomes God. In religious pluralism, the state becomes the great unifier, judge, lawgiver, and savior. However the state is not omniscient, omnipotent, all-wise, all-gracious, all-merciful, all-loving, or all-good. Meaning Canada’s “god,” the state, is a short-sighted, weak, incompetent, cruel, impersonal demi-god.
Canada’s Problems
When God is separated from the state and the state puts itself in the place of God we see a myriad of problems. Let’s consider just some of the issues facing Canada today.
1. Erratic Ethics
With a change of God there must, of necessity, be a change of law. Consequently, we’ve all witnessed a moral revolution in our country—a devolution in my opinion. It has affected marriage, with gay marriage legalized and seemingly no barriers to polygamy or polyamory. What is marriage anyway? Without God, it’s just a malleable social construct.
Canada has embraced the culture of death with MAiD and abortion. These ideas are rooted in the idea that the individual has the prerogative to kill themselves or their unborn child. Our culture has been sexualized—children are the greatest victims in this.
We’ve seen crime increase, chaos, the disintegration of public order, a lack of decency, cleanliness, and public safety. How can it be that people are afraid to use public transit or go out at night? Why is it commonplace to do “active shooter” drills at school, or not being able to let your children play in the playground unattended for fear of kidnapping, a sexual predator, or coming across an infected needle?
Ideas have consequences. When we see a manifest change in law and order, it indicates that our God has changed. The ethics of our modern culture reflect the values of the new god of this country—the secular humanist state.
2. Uncompromising Accommodation
In new Canada’s pluralistic and multicultural milieu there must be accommodation. However, if you are not a pluralist but believe in the one true God, you will realize accommodation has its limits. Doctors, lawyers, and members of societies must agree with the radical secular ideals that religion is private, pluralism is a virtue, and your ultimate allegiance is to the state.
Oh yes, you can be pro-life, but you must make a referral if someone wants MAiD or an abortion. The states values, not yours, will be ultimate. Many societies have mandatory DEI training, indigenous indoctrination, and initiation into the climate cult. Oh yes, you can believe in Jesus, but he must be just one of the gods in this new pluralistic pantheon. He cannot be supreme. This is the accommodation and religious freedom of liberal secularism. It smells like tyranny.
3. No Social Cohesion
Our social fabric in Canada is threadbare. Canada’s social cohesion was stronger when there was a broad Christian consensus. Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, Congregationalists have many things in common. But now, with no shared values beyond allegiance to the state, our country is coming apart at the seams.
We don’t have a common language, common background, common history, common morality, common religion, or common culture. We’re just one big collection of individuals. Unlike a molecule with elements structured together in rigid bonds, giving cohesion and utility, our society is like a bag of marbles, no cohesion, structure, or anything that would hold us together in any form of harmony. Canada is a post-Christian, post-national state with no identity and no cohesion.
4. The Failure of the Family
Perhaps the biggest threat facing our society today is the disintegration of the family. Marriage, parenting, and children are all in complete disarray in our country. The government has taken many things upon itself—from childcare, social services, education, and welfare—but it cannot be a father or mother. It cannot replace the family. When it tries it only serves to erode and destroy the family, the very building block of any society.
Canada is in a crisis. We’re running out of borrowed capital from “Christian Canada.” The bank account is empty, and we’ve gone past our overdraft protection.
There is another way…
The Biblical Model
The Bible has always maintained distinctions between human governments. In the Old Testament we have clear separation of powers under God. The king was not allowed to sacrifice—this was not his jurisdiction. The priests and prophets had their roles. The prophet did not run the state but could go to the head of state and say to the king, “Thus saith the Lord!” There was cooperation but not conflation. There was a separation of church and state, but both were under God. The New Testament reaffirms this in the new covenant age where all nations come under the authority of Jesus Christ—a separation of church and state, under Christ.
The reformation was a back to the Bible movement and much thought was given to the relationship between church and state. What follows is a summary of what was mined out of the treasures of God’s word.
1. The Supremacy of God
The cooperation between these spheres of authority can only begin with the supremacy of God. Psalm 2 says that God and his Christ are supreme over the rulers and kings of this earth. In Matthew 28, after his resurrection, Jesus said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” In Revelation 1:5 it calls “Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth.” In Ephesians 1:22 Jesus is called the head of the church.
The Bible’s witness is clear. The resurrected Christ is the Lord of lords and King of kings. He is head of state, head of the church, and head of the home.
When Canada believed in the supremacy of God, it was not just any god or a god or a god concept, but the one, true and living God, revealed to us through his Son, Jesus Christ. A well-ordered society, church, or home begins with the supremacy of Jesus Christ.
2. The Sphere of the Church, State, and Family
Under God, in his economy, we have spheres of authority, limited in their jurisdiction and authority.
We have the church, given the keys to the kingdom of God. The church is the pillar and buttress of the truth (1 Tim 3:15), charged to preach the word of God and be God’s mouthpiece in this world. It has under its authority the sacraments, preaching and church discipline. Its most important task is proclaiming the good news of the risen Christ for forgiveness of sins and eternal life.
Then we have the state. Whereas the church has the keys; the state bears the sword. Romans 13:4 says of the magistrate, “he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant [lit. deacon] of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.” Therefore, the state’s key concern is justice. Punishing evil and thereby rewarding the righteous. Since he bears the sword to carry out God’s wrath it must be God’s standard of justice, not Marx’s or Gramsci’s. It is important that the state stays in its lane because it has such a powerful weapon: the criminal justice system, police, courts, and prison. If the sword is not wielded for good, it will be a terror to the people.
Finally the home, an oft neglected yet vital pre-political institution. The sanctity of marriage, child-rearing, and fathers acting as priests, providers, and protectors are essential in God’s economy.
In the New Testament we have Jesus’ answer when his critics asked him about paying taxes. Jesus famously said, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matt 22:21). From this we see that proper distinctions need to be made. What can’t be missed here is that Caesar himself must remember that he is also under God. Today’s state, like the Caesars of old, rule as if there is no God and assume supreme authority. But Caesar must render to God the things that are God’s—and in God’s economy, neither the church nor the family belong to him. In 2021, a police officer quoted this verse as he was arresting me for leaving the church open during COVID, calling me to yield to the government’s health orders—render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. I told him, “The church doesn’t belong to Caesar.”
These distinctions are important. When God is supreme and his law rules, then the state, the church, and the family, each take their rightful place. God, in perfect righteousness, is capable and fit to govern all. Man, in our fallen state and finitude, must never be entrusted with too much power. In God’s economy on earth, there is always a limitation in role and authority to prevent the tyrannical impulse of the human heart.
The Wisdom and Beauty of the Separation of Church and State under Christ
The separation of church and state under Christ is not just Scriptural, it leads to flourishing societies.
1. Spheres of Authority are Limited as to their Extent
The magistrate, the elder, and the father all have limited roles. The supremacy of Christ and his economy of spheres limit jurisdiction and prevent the tyranny of the state, the ecclesiocracy of the church, or the mafia with the family running the show. A separation of powers is both wise and good.
2. Spheres of Authority are Limited as to their Power
The magistrate, the church elder, and the father all answer to God and his law. There is a higher power, a supreme, unchanging law that holds both the Prime Minister, his government, and all the people to account. There is one standard of right and wrong, and all will be judged by Christ for how they used the authority entrusted to them.
It astounds me that people fearmonger about the tyranny of a Christian government. But we’ve had examples of them in Canada and the US. They weren’t perfect, but a government based on the ideals of a biblical government, is, by definition, a limited government. By prioritizing the individual above God, we’ve rejected limited government for the ever-increasing government who has taken authority over the church and family, pushing us into a soft-totalitarianism of radical secularism.
This is why a Christian government, with a true separation of church and state—but under Christ, promotes freedom. It’s not theory, it’s history. Christ is Lord and under Christ he gives limited authority to the state, to the church, and to the home and when they function under Christ, in cooperation, we have a foretaste of heaven on earth—a picture of the kingdom of God.
Therefore, I suggest we add two words to the common phrase “separation of church and state”: under God, or better yet, under Christ. This is the ideal society: a separation of church and state under Christ.