The separation of church and state today is often thought to mean that religion should have no place in politics. Canada’s major political parties are largely ‘secular’. In the 2025 federal election, Canada’s lone explicitly Christian political party garnered just over 10,000 votes (0.05%). Organizations like ARPA are accused of trying to impose their morality on others by advocating for laws in line with biblical norms.  

Through much of history, church and state were closely interconnected. The separation of church and state arose primarily as a means of protecting the church from state intrusion. It’s only in recent centuries that separation of church and state, alongside increasing secularism and declining religious adherence, began to mean that Christianity was simply unwelcome in Western politics. Opponents of applying Christian principles to the public square succeeded in making any explicitly religious perspective on public policy issues seem inappropriate to the modern ear. As such, Christianity was pushed into the private domain; you can be a Christian, but don’t let that be too obvious in political work. As Christians became resigned to this and kept their faith out of public life, the public square became even more secular.  

Christians differ on the appropriate relationship between church and state, and religion and politics. Some may agree that Christianity should have influence but still believe that the state itself should remain officially secular. Or perhaps the state should be officially Christian but still allow other religions to grow. Or maybe the state should be explicitly Christian, support Christian social institutions, enforce Christian principles, and even suppress non-Christian religion.   

Reformed Christians, too, have differed on the nature of the relationship between church and state. Last week, we looked at Calvin’s views on the role of the civil government. Over four centuries later, Reformed Christians continued to debate the relationship of church and state. Consider the late 19^th century debate over the Belgic Confession. 

Belgic Confession Article 36 

Article 36 of the Belgic Confession addresses the task of civil government. The civil government, the Confession says, should restrain lawlessness, punish wrongdoers and protect what is good. It must also protect the church and its ministry. That’s the portion Reformed Christians generally agree on. But the disputed portion follows: “that all idolatry and false worship may be removed and prevented, the kingdom of antichrist may be destroyed.” The Reformed Churches in the Netherlands removed this in 1905.  

Today, while some Reformed denominations have maintained this or similar wording, others have cut it and instead included it as a footnote. In general, Reformed Christians agree that the work of the church should be protected, i.e. the state should not interfere in worship or prohibit the advance of the Gospel, and should protect churches from attacks, vandalism, or disruption. But disagreement comes over the question of whether the state should get involved in religion at all, such as by preventing idolatry and false worship, or by promoting true religion.  

Former Dutch Prime Minister and theologian Abraham Kuyper was a key advocate for removing the contested line from Article 36, while his contemporary Dutch pastor and professor P.J. Hoedemaker defended it. Professor and philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd also weighed in on the relationship between church and state, writing after both Kuyper and Hoedemaker.  

No Secular State 

Despite their disagreements, all three thinkers agreed that there is no such thing as a neutral, secular state. After all, any laws or regulations are the fruit of a religious worldview. Political neutrality is impossible, as there is always a worldview foundation undergirding the laws.   

Government’s Knowledge of God 

Kuyper believed government is God’s servant and can understand God’s created world. Governments can know, via general revelation: 1. That there is a God; 2. That God rules over the universe and the state; 3. That God’s will requires righteousness and justice; and 4. That men can be delivered from sin only by grace. The state can then also honour God on this basis by invoking God’s name, dedicating a day of rest to Him, practicing justice with the sword, and allowing free course to the gospel. But Kuyper argued that the government does not interpret and directly apply Scripture but is instead responsible to uphold the natural knowledge of God and the moral law.  

Hoedemaker contended the government is also subject to God’s revealed will in Scripture, not to general revelation or natural law only. He accused Kuyper of ignoring the lordship of Christ over the state and being too pragmatic in his political theology. Rather, Hoedemaker said, Scripture must guide civil governments. Hoedemaker also believed that civil governments should suppress false worship and recognize a national church. Scripture is interpreted by the national church, Hoedemaker says, which enlightens the state with regard to its duties, holding the state accountable to the Word.  

Herman Dooyeweerd would later explain that natural (or general) revelation cannot be separated from special revelation. He references Calvin’s analogy of Scripture as spectacles that help us better understand general revelation. Christ is sovereign over all who are in authority, including in the state. This lordship of Christ, for Dooyeweerd, is also seen through common (or conserving) and special grace. Common grace is the idea that the effects of sin are limited by the structures of creation or those that were established to restrain sin. As such, it is possible for a pagan family to maintain its structure as a family or a pagan state to function as a state. All people benefit from this grace. Special grace, on the other hand, is saving grace whereby men’s hearts are changed. At the same time, common grace has its foundation in special grace because it rests on the work of Christ. The two (common and special grace) cannot be disconnected, just as general and special revelation cannot be disconnected. We need Scripture to understand general revelation and common grace, even though they are available to all people. Scripture is foundational, although it does not apply as directly to politics as some might think, for example by prescribing a particular set of laws or system of government.  

Today, Christians might debate whether and how government should discern and apply natural law principles or interpret and apply Scripture. Natural law refers to general revelation and the universal moral standards that can be discerned without Scripture. In politics, people may use natural law to show what results in the best outcomes as demonstrated by social scientific evidence. But we cannot forget that God’s design is why the world works in a particular way. Scripture further reveals God’s will in creation and redemption. Both are necessary for a comprehensive understanding of God’s will and how He would have us live.  

Relationship Between Church and State 

Kuyper argued that the church and state were distinct spheres, both under the lordship of Christ. In their respective spheres, each had their own roles and responsibilities. For Kuyper, civil government’s job is not to function as an active supporter or promoter of the church, though it must allow the work of the church to flourish.  

Hoedemaker, however, responded that the government should be bound in its actions to the confessions of the national church, and that the church should instruct government about moral and biblical principles. Hoedemaker believed that the church should have a direct influence over government.  

Dooyeweerd agreed with Kuyper that the church and state are different types of institutions. While the state is a public-legal community, the Church is a Christian faith community. Members of the church can contribute to the direction of political affairs so that justice can be done, but the church as an institution does not direct the affairs of the state.  

Dooyeweerd also argues that the state should not bind itself to a church confession, as this would confuse church and state. Dooyeweerd affirms that the Bible is normative for all of life, including political life. However, while everyone should seek to follow God’s will in their work, we must understand the distinct authority and callings of church and state as God-ordained institutions. God’s will is discerned and followed in government by faithful people pursuing public justice, understood in light of a holistic biblical worldview. Governments do not submit to God by submitting to the direction or oversight of the institutional church. 

Christ is ruler of political life. For Dooyeweerd, the state is rooted in general grace , founded on norms of public justice and applicable to all. Alternatively, the church is rooted in special grace, applicable to some. The state is ordained on account of sin and holds the power of the sword to restrain sin and its chaos. The state’s task is not to change hearts or convert people, but to preserve temporal human society. “A state may be called a Christian state when … it seeks to do the will of Christ, to whom all power and authority has been given.” The state’s calling is not to support or oversee missions, evangelism, etc. But the state should maintain the conditions necessary for the church to flourish and carry out its calling unhindered. 

Christians may vary on the nature of the relationship between church and state. ARPA sees the concept of sphere sovereignty as helpful in understanding the God-given roles and responsibilities of various social institutions, especially the family, the church, and the state.  

Conclusion  

Reformed Christians may find themselves more closely aligned with Hoedemaker, Kuyper, Dooyeweerd, or other important Reformed theologians and political theorists. But we would highlight that all three of these men agreed that Christians must not separate their faith from their involvement in politics or abandon the field of politics to secularists.  

What we think about the relationship between church and state, and between religion and politics, has practical implications. For ARPA Canada, we endeavour to ensure that a holistic biblical worldview undergirds all our policy analysis and advocacy. Understanding Reformed principles and debates about the ideal relationship between church and state helps Christians apply biblical principles to the public square more fully.