A False Argument: The Separation of Church and State
by Brian C. Stiller
With the election of Stockwell Day, pundits have launched their attacks, underlined by an anxiety that a person with strong Christian (spell that "evangelical") beliefs and views might become prime minister. One journalist worried about Day "bringing his evangelical views to the table in an apparent blurring of the line between church and state."
First, what is meant by this distinction of church and state? The issue of separation of church and state has essentially been one of the American constitution. In separating from England, Americans wrote into their constitution that the state would have no part in promoting any church. As they formed their republic, they rejected the English/European model in which the church was an ally of the state, if not at times an instrument. Thus a clear separation of the two institutions was critical.
In Canada, government policy—both provincial and federal—has allowed, if not encouraged, church and state to work together in various ways. Today in Ontario, Christian Horizons, the largest provider of service to developmentally handicapped adults, is funded by the government. In Manitoba, Christian private colleges receive per capita grants from the government. In various cities, Youth for Christ and Teen Challenge receive operating grants from the government for their service to troubled youth. This healthy linking of resources is not seen as problematic. Separation of the workings of the church and state is simply not part of the Canadian constitutional experience.
The one major change to our historic compatibility of the two institutions came as the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms was applied to an Alberta Sunday closing provincial statute. The Big M Drug Mart case in 1985 challenged the provincial law which had forced a Calgary drug store to close on Sunday. The company appealed on the basis of the freedom-of-religion clause in the new constitution and won. Chief Justice Dickson said in his ruling, because the law rose out of "religious values rooted in Christian morality" the Alberta law was therefore unconstitutional.
In this landmark case the court ruled that if a law is based on religious values it can be deemed to be in violation of the Charter. What this will mean in the future, we aren’t sure. But it doesn’t mean that a person with religious convictions can’t express them in public debate. It can be argued that all views ultimately come out of a religious view of life. Prime Minister Chretien’s government in passing a law to define marriage as being between a woman and a man (and that only) flows from the Judeo-Christian vision of life. This federal statute is as much based on religious values of Christian morality as was the Alberta government’s policy on Sunday closing.
Regardless of what might develop, it’s important that Christians understand their role as church members in relationship to government, especially as the possibility increases that a declared evangelical may rise to the highest political office. Christians make an enormous mistake when they assume that the role of government is to do the work of the church. Be it Manning or Day, Chretien or Martin, whomever, whether in government or opposition, be it on the national, provincial or municipal stage, the government has a specific role which is to serve the broader public good. Sometimes what a politician—we helped elect—does lines up with our convictions and sometimes not. To expect Day to only serve the community who elected him without consideration and fairness for all is to violate the very position of elected office.
Those who supported Day, be cautious in what you expect by way of policy. First, it may be difficult to discern which policy is "Christian," for on any given policy Christian views (conservative ones, too) will be split. As well, the role of a politician is complex, especially one who derives his vision out of public opinion, believing that his responsibility is to speak the mind of his constituency, even if the public views differ from their own.
For much of the past 100 years, most of the Christian influence in Canadian national life has come from the mainline church community. The public gatekeepers were comfortable with those like John Diefenbakker and Tommy Douglas, members of mainstream Baptists. They served at a time when politicians of Christian faith, be they political conservatives or socialists, were seen as legitimate. Now, not only is the media ill-informed about who today’s evangelicals are, they are uncomfortable in dealing with those who are open about their faith.
This is an important time for Christians in all political parties. There is an opportunity to set new standards of public debate, attitudes and policy. The wider community need not fear that Christian politicians will impose their values and overrun the rights of Canadians. There are constitutional safeguards to prevent that; but even more, when Christ calls His people to serve, service, not dominance, is the operative word.
First, what is meant by this distinction of church and state? The issue of separation of church and state has essentially been one of the American constitution. In separating from England, Americans wrote into their constitution that the state would have no part in promoting any church. As they formed their republic, they rejected the English/European model in which the church was an ally of the state, if not at times an instrument. Thus a clear separation of the two institutions was critical.
In Canada, government policy—both provincial and federal—has allowed, if not encouraged, church and state to work together in various ways. Today in Ontario, Christian Horizons, the largest provider of service to developmentally handicapped adults, is funded by the government. In Manitoba, Christian private colleges receive per capita grants from the government. In various cities, Youth for Christ and Teen Challenge receive operating grants from the government for their service to troubled youth. This healthy linking of resources is not seen as problematic. Separation of the workings of the church and state is simply not part of the Canadian constitutional experience.
The one major change to our historic compatibility of the two institutions came as the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms was applied to an Alberta Sunday closing provincial statute. The Big M Drug Mart case in 1985 challenged the provincial law which had forced a Calgary drug store to close on Sunday. The company appealed on the basis of the freedom-of-religion clause in the new constitution and won. Chief Justice Dickson said in his ruling, because the law rose out of "religious values rooted in Christian morality" the Alberta law was therefore unconstitutional.
In this landmark case the court ruled that if a law is based on religious values it can be deemed to be in violation of the Charter. What this will mean in the future, we aren’t sure. But it doesn’t mean that a person with religious convictions can’t express them in public debate. It can be argued that all views ultimately come out of a religious view of life. Prime Minister Chretien’s government in passing a law to define marriage as being between a woman and a man (and that only) flows from the Judeo-Christian vision of life. This federal statute is as much based on religious values of Christian morality as was the Alberta government’s policy on Sunday closing.
Regardless of what might develop, it’s important that Christians understand their role as church members in relationship to government, especially as the possibility increases that a declared evangelical may rise to the highest political office. Christians make an enormous mistake when they assume that the role of government is to do the work of the church. Be it Manning or Day, Chretien or Martin, whomever, whether in government or opposition, be it on the national, provincial or municipal stage, the government has a specific role which is to serve the broader public good. Sometimes what a politician—we helped elect—does lines up with our convictions and sometimes not. To expect Day to only serve the community who elected him without consideration and fairness for all is to violate the very position of elected office.
Those who supported Day, be cautious in what you expect by way of policy. First, it may be difficult to discern which policy is "Christian," for on any given policy Christian views (conservative ones, too) will be split. As well, the role of a politician is complex, especially one who derives his vision out of public opinion, believing that his responsibility is to speak the mind of his constituency, even if the public views differ from their own.
For much of the past 100 years, most of the Christian influence in Canadian national life has come from the mainline church community. The public gatekeepers were comfortable with those like John Diefenbakker and Tommy Douglas, members of mainstream Baptists. They served at a time when politicians of Christian faith, be they political conservatives or socialists, were seen as legitimate. Now, not only is the media ill-informed about who today’s evangelicals are, they are uncomfortable in dealing with those who are open about their faith.
This is an important time for Christians in all political parties. There is an opportunity to set new standards of public debate, attitudes and policy. The wider community need not fear that Christian politicians will impose their values and overrun the rights of Canadians. There are constitutional safeguards to prevent that; but even more, when Christ calls His people to serve, service, not dominance, is the operative word.