Sacralism

Sacralism, in its theological and political sense, refers to the belief that religious and political authorities should be closely aligned, with the state having a role in enforcing religious laws and the church wielding political influence. This concept often leads to a theocratic form of government, where civil authority is viewed as divinely appointed and religious leaders hold sway over political governance. Historically, sacralism was a key feature of both Roman Catholic and certain Protestant societies during the medieval and early modern periods. Sacralism would more accurately be categorized as an error rather than a formal heresy.

Historical Development of Sacralism

The roots of sacralism trace back to the reign of Emperor Constantine (early 4th century), who, after his conversion to Christianity, began the process of integrating the Christian church with the Roman state. Constantine's policies marked the beginning of a long-standing relationship between the church and state in which the church gained political authority, and the emperor received religious legitimacy. This relationship deepened in the Middle Ages, especially under the Roman Catholic Church.

During the medieval period, sacralism reached its peak in the West as the Roman Catholic Church gained significant temporal power, crowned kings, and even wielded influence over emperors. This period saw the rise of the doctrine of the “two swords” (derived from Luke 22:38), which posited that both spiritual and temporal authority were given by God, with the pope holding spiritual power and civil rulers exercising temporal power, but under the guidance of the church. In this system, the pope had supreme authority, not only over religious matters but over civil rulers as well.

Roman Catholic Theology and the Divine Right of Kings

The Roman Catholic Church played a central role in promoting the idea of the divine right of kings, which held that monarchs were appointed by God and accountable to Him alone for their rule. According to this doctrine, rebellion against a king was akin to rebellion against God, and monarchs were seen as God's representatives on earth.

The doctrine of the divine right of kings was closely associated with the idea of sacralism because it justified absolute monarchy under religious auspices. In this system, the king's authority was sanctified by the church, giving religious legitimacy to political power. The papacy, especially during its height of power, crowned emperors and kings, reinforcing this sacral view of kingship.

For instance:

• Pope Gregory VII in the 11th century asserted papal supremacy over kings in the famous conflict with Emperor Henry IV during the Investiture Controversy, emphasizing the church’s authority over civil rulers.
• Pope Innocent III further strengthened this sacral vision by intervening in political affairs across Europe, crowning kings, and deposing rulers who were deemed heretical or rebellious against papal authority.

This theological system allowed the Roman Catholic Church to maintain its influence over European monarchs and provided a religious justification for the centralization of authority in both the papacy and the monarchy.

Protestantism and the Critique of Sacralism

The Protestant Reformation, beginning in the 16th century, marked a significant shift away from sacralism, especially as it pertained to the union of church and state. Protestant Reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin critiqued the corruption that arose from the close entanglement of ecclesiastical and civil power in the Roman Catholic Church.

One of the main theological reasons for this shift was Protestant views on human nature. The Reformers emphasized the doctrine of total depravity, which teaches that sin affects all aspects of human life, including the mind, will, and emotions. As a result, no human institution, whether the church or the state, could be trusted with unchecked power. This theological conviction laid the foundation for calls for political reforms that would decentralize power and prevent the kinds of abuses that had characterized much of medieval Christendom.

Protestants like John Calvin recognized the need for checks and balances on both ecclesiastical and civil authorities. Calvin argued that while civil government was ordained by God to maintain justice and order, its power was limited. The church and state, though both ordained by God, had distinct roles. Calvin’s Geneva, though it had some elements of theocratic governance, still emphasized the distinct functions of the magistrate and the church.

Lex Rex: Samuel Rutherford and the Rule of Law

The principle of Lex Rex (Latin for “The Law is King”) was famously articulated by the Scottish Presbyterian theologian Samuel Rutherford in 1644. In his work Lex Rex, Rutherford countered the notion of the divine right of kings, arguing instead that kings are subject to the law of God and the laws of the land.

Rutherford's Lex Rex was a revolutionary concept because it posited that law, not the king, is supreme. He argued that:

• Civil rulers are accountable to God and the people they govern.
• When a ruler violates the law or governs tyrannically, it is lawful to resist him because he has breached his covenantal role.
• Power should be distributed to prevent any single individual or institution from becoming tyrannical. The government must be ruled by laws, not by the arbitrary will of rulers.

This concept of rule of law was foundational in shaping modern constitutionalism and the separation of powers. Rutherford’s views were grounded in Protestant beliefs about the fallen nature of man. Since all humans are sinners, no one person or institution can be entrusted with absolute power. This led to a system of government in which the power of rulers was limited and subject to laws—laws that reflected God's justice and moral order as revealed in Scripture.

Protestant Views on Separation of Church and State

While Protestants believed that both church and state were ordained by God, they emphasized a distinction between the two:

• The state has authority over civil matters, including maintaining justice, order, and peace.
• The church has authority over spiritual matters, such as preaching the gospel, administering the sacraments, and shepherding the spiritual well-being of believers.

The Westminster Confession of Faith, for example, upholds the separation of church and state by teaching that the civil magistrate does not have authority to administer sacraments or dictate matters of faith (Chapter 23). This distinction was in direct contrast to sacralism.

The Protestant Emphasis on Human Nature and the Rule of Law

Protestant political theology, particularly in the Reformed tradition, was deeply influenced by its doctrine of human nature:

1. Total depravity meant that all humans, including kings and clergy, are prone to sin and corruption. Therefore, unchecked power in the hands of any individual or institution would lead to tyranny.
2. Protestantism emphasized covenantalism in both the church and the state. Just as the people of God are in covenant with Him, rulers are in covenant with their people, and they are bound to govern justly under the rule of law.
3. Protestants like Rutherford and Calvin saw government as a tool for justice, but not for controlling religious belief. This led to the development of constitutionalism and later political theories that would influence the rise of democracies where the rule of law, not the rule of kings or popes, held ultimate authority.

Conclusion

In summary, sacralism represents the fusion of church and state power, promoting a system where religious and political authority are intertwined. This view was central to Roman Catholic political theology, particularly through the doctrine of the divine right of kings, which saw rulers as divinely appointed and accountable only to God.

In contrast, Protestant theology, with its emphasis on human depravity, promoted the rule of law and the separation of church and state as safeguards against the corruption that arises when too much power is concentrated in any one person or institution. Samuel Rutherford’s Lex Rex and the broader Reformed tradition's critique of sacralism laid the groundwork for modern constitutionalism, where law is supreme, and rulers are accountable to both God and the people they govern.

Heresy or Error?

From a Protestant perspective, particularly within the Reformed tradition, sacralism would more accurately be categorized as an error rather than a formal heresy. The distinction between heresy and error is important in theological discussions:

• Heresy typically refers to a deviation from core, essential doctrines of the Christian faith—truths necessary for salvation, such as the doctrine of the Trinity, the person and work of Christ, or justification by faith. Heresies threaten the very foundation of the faith, and those holding to them are often seen as outside the bounds of orthodox Christianity.

• Error, on the other hand, refers to mistaken beliefs or practices that, while serious, do not necessarily undermine the essentials of the faith. Errors may be found in secondary or tertiary matters, such as church government, the relationship between church and state, or various aspects of Christian living.

Why Sacralism is Considered an Error Rather Than a Heresy:

1. No Direct Threat to Core Doctrines: Sacralism does not directly undermine core Christian doctrines like the Trinity, Christology, or salvation by grace through faith alone. Therefore, it is not viewed as a heresy in the formal sense. Protestants would still recognize those who hold to sacralism as fellow Christians if they affirm the essential doctrines of the faith.

2. Serious Misunderstanding of the Role of Church and State: Sacralism represents a significant error in understanding the distinct roles that the Bible assigns to civil government and the church. Protestants, especially in the Reformed tradition, emphasize the distinction between these two spheres of authority. According to the Protestant understanding, the state’s role is civil and temporal, while the church’s role is spiritual and focused on the proclamation of the gospel, the administration of the sacraments, and the discipline of its members. However, this distinction does not mean that the church should be silent in matters of governance or refrain from speaking to power. The church is called to be a prophetic voice in society, promoting righteousness, justice, and moral truth in line with God's Word, and it has a responsibility to remind civil authorities of their duty to uphold justice and govern in accordance with God's moral law, even as it refrains from seeking direct control over civil affairs.

   The Westminster Confession of Faith, for example, teaches that the civil magistrate should not assume the role of administering the Word and sacraments or dictate the church’s spiritual matters (Chapter 23). Sacralism blurs these distinctions, leading to a corruption of both church and state authority by combining civil and spiritual power. This is why it would be considered an error in Protestant thinking.

3. Potential for Tyranny and Corruption: From a Protestant point of view, especially one informed by the doctrine of total depravity, sacralism can lead to grave consequences, such as the persecution of dissenters, the corruption of true religion by political interests, and the suppression of religious liberty. Historically, sacralism often led to the persecution of Protestants by civil authorities who enforced Roman Catholic orthodoxy. Therefore, Protestants would view sacralism as a dangerous error with serious practical consequences, even though it might not be heretical in the technical sense.

4. Opposition to Religious Liberty: One of the key objections Protestants have against sacralism is that it opposes the principle of liberty of conscience. Reformed theology, as reflected in the Westminster Confession of Faith (Chapter 20), emphasizes that God alone is Lord of the conscience and that no human authority—whether ecclesiastical or civil—should impose matters of faith or compel individuals to believe or practice what Scripture does not require. Sacralism, with its imposition of religious conformity through civil power, violates this principle and is thus an error from the Protestant standpoint.

Categories of Error:

In Protestant theological thought, errors like sacralism might be placed within a few distinct categories:

1. Ecclesiological Error: Sacralism misinterprets the nature and role of the church, viewing it as a political entity rather than as a spiritual community under Christ's headship.

2. Political-Theological Error: Sacralism misunderstands the role of civil government by assigning it responsibilities that Scripture reserves for the church (such as enforcing religious belief or overseeing spiritual matters). This confusion undermines the biblical distinction between the two kingdoms: the spiritual reign of Christ over His church and the civil authority of rulers over temporal affairs.

3. Practical Error: Historically, sacralism has led to the suppression of religious dissent, persecution, and the corruption of both civil and ecclesiastical institutions. The church loses its prophetic voice when it becomes entangled with the political powers of the state, and the state loses its impartiality when it enforces religious orthodoxy.

Conclusion:

While sacralism is not formally heretical, it is a significant error within the Protestant tradition. It conflates the roles of church and state, leading to violations of Christian liberty and religious persecution. Protestants, especially in the Reformed tradition, argue for the separation of church and state not because religion is unimportant but because the state cannot coerce genuine faith or properly govern the spiritual realm.

----

Related Essay
The 10 Dangers of Statism