Church, State, and the Social Contract: Fight over COVID Measures in Waterloo County
(This article was originally written on May 21st, 2021)
We often think of the separation of Church and State as a one way agreement: The separation of Church, from state. This separation of influence and power between the religious body of the church and the political body of the state is enforced and guaranteed in many countries around the world, including Canada and the United States of America. But there is a similar, yet important (and philosophically interesting) debate that seldom is discussed, at least comparatively to the former. What I am referring to is the degree of power and authority that the state should have over the Church. The government here in Canada cannot tell any individual to follow or not follow a certain religion, but can they tell a specific church how to preach? Can it fund a specific religious institution?
In relation to the above predicament, there is another particularly relevant question in our current age of COVID-19. Does the state have the power to shut down or restrict access to any religious institution or group? In other words, can the government ban and make it illegal for people to go to church?
In Waterloo County, conflict, arising from disagreement as to just what the answer to these questions above should be, has come up several times during the last 14 months. The result has arisen anger from parts of the religious community, because, the jury is in: Yes, the state has the power to interfere in the affairs of the church, including (but not limited to), locking the doors, indefinitely. This has been shown repeatedly, with several examples in Waterloo county.
On Sunday, January 3rd 2021, 6 attendees of ‘Trinity Bible Chapel’, a Church , located near St.Jacobs in Waterloo County, were charged by local police for violating the COVID-19 restrictions in Ontario, charges that will likely end in fines up to $10,000, if found guilty. Similar fines have been issued across Ontario and, frankly, across the western world. In Waterloo County, the issue seems to be between a couple of rebellious Protestant Christian churches, and the Waterloo police department, who are there to enforce the Ontario Government's restrictions. The Trinity Bible Chapel was again charged after ignoring those restrictions on Sunday April 25th, a week after holding a service that had the ‘whole parking lot full’. Members of the chapel are also said to be involved in the ongoing anti-lockdown movement in Southern Ontario(1); Jacob Reaume, a pastor at Trinity Bible Chapel, spoke to a crowd of over 100 at Waterloo public square on May 9th “with a microphone in one hand and a bible in the other''. They are not alone, as over the past year there have been tensions in the Menonite community over COVID-19 measures. Other religious communities, such as Muslims and Catholics, have expressed the hardship that comes from the inability to worship with others, but up to this point, have not challenged the government in a substantial way.
Curious about the nature of the happenings surrounding this controversy, I biked up near St. Jacobs to the now infamous Trinity Bible Chapel, only to find papers taped to the front door. Pictures below:
{Blurry Legal documents issued by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against Trinity Bible Chapel and 6 individuals}
As is noticeable from looking at these taped up pieces of paper, each sheet has been vandalized with penned writings of three different political labels. “Communist”, “Nazi”, “Fascist”, comparing these measures to past memory and examples of governments that are widely regarded to have acted unjustly and and in a way that borders on Totalitarian.
What is also noticeable is the exact grounds the Church and Church-goers are being charged on. At the bottom of the top photo (the paper that says “communists”), it reads:
“This Application brought by the Applicant, The Attorney General of Ontario, without notice for an order under section 9 of Reopening Ontario (A Flexible Response to COVID-19) Act, 2020, S.O. 2020, c 17 was heard this day by video conference (2) in Kitchener, Ontario.”
In simpler terms, that means the Church was charged for breaking the bylaw “Reopening Ontario Act”. The act, also called Bill 195, is legislation that is not new or descriptive in and of itself, but instead, an act calling for the enforcement of a previously passed bill.
The “Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act” is this bill. Section 2 of Bill 195 reads:
“The orders made under section 7.0.2 or 7.1 of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act that have not been revoked as of the day this subsection comes into force are continued as valid and effective orders under this Act and cease to be orders under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act.”
It turns out that on March 17th 2020, when the Ontario Government initially put into force these health restrictions, they were declaring an emergency that would grant them legal powers already outlined in the Emergency Management and Civil Protections Act. It is clear now, in light of the recent conflicts between church and state, as well as in the sphere of business and personal life, that not everyone in Waterloo County agrees philosophically with the powers given to government under this act. A substantial chunk of the Canadian population, made of people that are expressively anti-lockdown, government sceptical, liberatarian, and so on, do not believe that the government, or any central authority for that matter, ought to have the power to tell them what to do, how to live their lives, and certainly not to have the power to enforce the amount of people they can see or sell goods and services to. A society that goes against these principles is unjust and equatable to governments run by Adolf Hitler, Francisco Franco, and Pol Pot.
Another way of perceiving this issue, a perspective that the Canadian government seems to be evoking, is one that values The Social Contract. The social contract is a political/philosophical idea that has been around for millennias, expressed by Aristotle (The individual being an “organ” of the state), and later articulated by enlightenment philosophers, particularly, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, author of “The Social Contract''. The basic premise goes like this: The relationship between state and individual is essentially a social contract. Both are better off together, the state with strong, competent individuals, and individuals with a strong, competent state. The state offers individuals protection from outside threats, welfare, social services, stability (the list could go on), and in return, the individual returns the favour by serving and respecting the state in ways like paying taxes, doing jury duty, potentially serving in the military, following laws, and generally being an upstanding citizen. Leaving this abstract scenario, the Coronavirus has shown on the world stage both the controversy and fragility surrounding the social contract. There is both disagreement on what constitutes an “emergency” and what power governments should have over individuals even when emergency is agreed upon. The Emergency Management and Civil Protections Act was a product of the widespread belief in the social contract (or atleast, widespread in government circles), but perhaps we are entering a time when public opinion is shifting in the other direction? Could it be that the state has been discredited, thought of as not serving the very people it claims to have a contract with?
There are many possibilities as to where this philosophical disagreement comes from. Three come to mind:
COVID-19 is/is not an emergency, therefor the state does/does not have the right to interfere in the life of the individual
The state does/does not (either because of corruption or incompetence) adequately serve the people or individual, and therefore the social contract is just/unjust
Acceptance/rejection of the social contract entirely
I, for one, am a believer in the need for a social contract, and I do believe that Covid-19 is a public health emergency, yet there is a strong part of me that feels as though the Government of Canada serves wealthy and connected individuals and owners of multinational corporations over the masses of people. This has made it harder to follow their orders, since, why would I follow my end of the contract if they won't follow theirs?
It must not be forgotten too that this controversy relates to religion, and to God. The people at Trinity Bible Chapel are lovers of God first and foremost, fully committed to His word and His devotion. A government, made up of humans, is not greater in power, and does no authority when judged against the Will of God. To expect those with these beliefs to accept orders from government that makes it illegal to worship God with others in a Church environment is naive. God comes first. To quote an article written on Trinity Bible Chapel’s website - “When the government forbids what God commands or commands what God forbids, we must obey God, not men”. This is another predicament of the social contract, as it assumes that the social contract of the state is universally agreed on as being the highest law of the land.
With all of this in mind, Waterloo county must assess its future policy towards religious services during COVID-19, and must figure out how to bring a greater number of people to accept the social contract. If there is a failure to do the latter, there could be a serious backlash. Every fallen empire in history, potentially thousands in number, had some sort of rupture in their social contract, leading to societal decay. When parts of the Roman empire fell to northern barbarians, it was the Roman state that failed to protect their own citizens, leaving many areas in western Europe in disarray. It would be arrogant and snobbish(3) of us in our time to not even consider the possibility of an analogous rupture today.
In documenting these events, whether they involve rebellious faithful praying in shut down churches, businesses selling non-essential items, or individuals gathering without masks, all against COVID-19 policy, I wish to explain to government officials and citizens that there is a profound disagreement of political philosophy behind all of it. The folks at Trinity Bible Chapel broke the law on April 26th, and several times before, because they do not respect the “Emergency Management and Civil Protections Act” and the authority of any government who would legislate it. The act, being a justification for extreme government power, is the ultimate signifier of a strong social contract(4). Equivalents have existed in many societies in the past. In an emergency, how can an individual protect themselves against a problem so large in scale? The act recognizes this problem, and solves it by granting a central authority, with vast resources, extraordinary powers, in exchange for a large amount of personal choice, freedom, and apparently, worship.
This is where we come to my final point. The Emergency Management and Civil Protections Act, and the social contract in general, assume that the Government is acting in good faith, and in a time of real emergency, is genuinely looking out for the safety and well being of the masses, with no ulterior motives. That is not the feeling of the charged Churchgoers, and in the world of business, probably not the feeling of the average small business, having been shut down for months, and at the same time watching corporate empires such as Amazon or Walmart (American companies, I might add) rake in billions and increase profits. This is a time of great pain in the lives of many in our country. Their pain should be understood, not demonized. That is the only way our social contract will prosper going forward.
Notes
A movement that I have written about previously.
Something about online courts and juries rubs me the wrong way. I can’t quite put my finger on why, but if this continues after COVID-19 I will have to articulate my displeasure
C.S. Lewis calls this “Chronological snobbery”
If the social contract was written like a real legal contract, this section would be in the fineprint ;)
Further reading
Constitution of the United States of America
Constitution of Canada
Bill 195 “Reopening Ontario Act”
The social contract by Jean Jacques Rousseau (1762)
Comments