Context: The Confederation Report
Host: Steven R. Martins
Language: English
Part I: Meaningfully Engaging with Islam (0:05-6:38)
The Global Imams Council’s call for religion to remain separate from the public square contradicts historical reality, as Islam has historically functioned as both a religious and governing system, intertwining faith with political authority.
Part II: The Incongruence of Religion and Secularism (6:42-13:42)
Secularism presents itself as neutral but is, in reality, a competing religious worldview that replaces Christianity with humanism, enforcing its own dogma while falsely claiming to exclude religious commitments from the public square.
Part III: Life Is Religion (13:45-17:45)
Faith is inescapable, shaping every aspect of life, and the secular demand to confine religion to the private sphere is both unrealistic and self-contradictory, for all worldviews—including secularism—are ultimately religious commitments directing mankind’s worship toward either the true God or an idol.
Did You Know? (17:49-19:06)
During the French regime in New France, the church was a central force in social order, education, and welfare, controlling vast land holdings, addressing social issues, and shaping daily life through its institutions, with a growing local clergy by 1760.
Recommended Reading (19:07-20:23)
This week’s recommended reading, The Relation of the Bible to Learning by H. Evan Runner, presents a foundational call for Christians to integrate faith and scholarship, emphasizing the Bible’s centrality in education and shaping a distinctly biblical intellectual tradition.
Transcript:
It’s Week 11 of 2025, and this is The Confederation Report, a weekly analysis of Canadian news and culture from a biblical worldview. I’m Steven R. Martins, and each week, we break down the headlines, challenge secular narratives, and apply Scripture to the issues that matter. Because Christ is Lord—over Canada, over culture, over all of life.
Part I: Meaningfully Engaging with Islam (0:05-6:38)
On February 27, 2025, an independent MP (Member of Parliament) stood alongside the Global Imams Council at a news conference to denounce extremism carried out in the name of Islam, affirm Islam as a peaceful faith, and insist that religion should remain separate from the public square, including (and most especially) politics. Yet, such a claim by the Global Imams Council raises an important question: Is this stance of the sacred-secular divide consistent with Islamic history? Is it consistent with religious history in general?
A study of early Islamic history suggests otherwise. From the time of Muhammad’s leadership in Medina, Islam was not merely a personal faith but a governing system, intertwining religious and political authority. This pattern continued as Islam expanded through military conquests in the seventh century and beyond, shaping legal and political institutions across the regions it controlled. The idea that Islam has historically functioned as a secularized, private belief system—distinct from the affairs of state—is simply not supported by the historical record.
For those interested in a deeper exploration of this reality, Gabriel Said Reynolds’ The Emergence of Islam: Classical Traditions in Contemporary Perspective and James White’s What Every Christian Needs to Know about the Qur’an provide a detailed examination of Islam’s foundational texts and their historical implications. Such studies reveal that Islam’s theological and political development has not been uniform, but rather deeply intertwined with governance and law. This raises an unavoidable question: if Islam has historically been inseparable from political authority, or from the public square, how do contemporary Muslim leaders reconcile this history with their call for secularism?
Consider, for instance, the implementation of Islamic law in eighth-century Hispania, particularly under the Maliki tradition. Islamic governance transformed the Iberian Peninsula, enforcing Sharia law and altering the social, cultural, and religious landscape. Historical records document the destruction of Catholic municipalities, the suppression of Christian cultural expressions, and the renaming of Hispanic territories with Arabic terms—most famously, Al-Andalus. Some modern commentators have romanticized this period as a model of religious coexistence, but historian Darío Fernández-Morera, in his book The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise, refutes these claims, demonstrating the systemic subjugation of non-Muslims under Islamic rule. The Islam that shaped eighth-century Hispania was thus not an expression of religious pluralism or secular neutrality; it was a governing system that sought dominance over public life.
This historical reality stands in stark contrast to the claim made at the recent news conference. If secularism truly means the exclusion of religious influence from politics and public life, then Islam’s historical trajectory is anything but secular. Even today, in many Islamic-majority nations, governance remains deeply informed by Islamic law and theology. To insist that Islam is purely a private, personal faith detached from political authority is to project a modern Western framework onto a religious tradition that has historically resisted such compartmentalization.
Of course, denouncing extremism is necessary, and I would go as far as to say that the denouncement by the Global Imams Council is commendable, most especially for the Canadian cultural context. No society can tolerate acts of violence in the name of any ideology. However, addressing extremism requires more than broad statements about peace—it demands an honest engagement with the ideological foundations that have historically shaped a religion’s interaction with society and governance.
At the same time, we must be wary of reactions that swing to the other extreme. Some in the West have wrongfully vilified all Muslims, failing to distinguish between individuals and the system of faith they adhere to, which each has interpreted according to their own respective standards. Such an approach of vilification is not only unjust, but counterproductive. Over the years, I have had the privilege of forming friendships with Muslims, from the Ahmadi to the Sunni branches of Islam, who are just as much my neighbors as anyone else. They deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, for they too bear the image of God.
Yet the love we are called by Holy Scripture to extend does not mean ignoring the truth. A faithful witness calls people to examine their own worldview honestly. Is it internally consistent? Does it align with reality? As Christians, we are called to engage, not only with compassion, but with conviction, presenting the gospel as the only foundation for true peace. This is the kind of engagement that led Nabeel Qureshi to embrace Christ. His book, Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus, is a powerful reminder that honest, loving dialogue can be conducive to transformation.
If we are to meaningfully engage with Islam, we must do so with both clarity and charity, as we are to do with any religious worldview. But above all, we must not accept historical revisionism. The claim that Islam has always been a private faith, separate from governance, does not stand under scrutiny. If there is to be an honest conversation about religion and public life, it must begin with acknowledging the reality of history.
Part II: The Incongruence of Religion and Secularism (6:42-13:42)
Furthering the discussion of the nature of religion and secularism, it is a contradiction for a group of religious leaders to stand alongside a government representative, making a political declaration, while simultaneously asserting that religion should remain absent from the public square. Their very presence and statements were political acts, and yet they spoke of upholding secularism and resisting the imposition of religious beliefs on society. But is secularism itself not a religious commitment? It is a worldview that presupposes that religious claims should be relegated to the private sphere while allowing secular ideologies to shape public policy. The claim that religious convictions should not influence governance is, in itself, a governing religious conviction. Now, understand that I am not making a political point, I am making a philosophical point, though that point does have political ramifications. As a matter of fact, it has life ramifications.
Let me explain to you the false reality of secularism:
The secularist worldview presents itself as a neutral, objective framework for understanding reality, but it’s nothing more than a false reality built on contradictions. It claims to operate independently of religion, yet it functions as a religion in itself—one that deifies mankind as the final arbiter of truth. The Enlightenment thinkers who helped shape this ideology, such as Voltaire and Thomas Paine, promoted a radical humanism that sought to cast off biblical authority in favor of autonomous reason. Their intellectual descendants, as a result, built a society where so-called “neutral” knowledge is placed in the realm of “facts,” while religious and moral claims are relegated to the private sphere. However, this artificial distinction does not reflect the true nature of human knowledge and belief.
The two-storey analogy, as described by Mark L. Ward in his book Biblical Worldview: Creation, Fall, Redemption by BJU Press, illustrates the secularist attempt to compartmentalize reality. In the lower-storey, we find science, mathematics, and facts—things that secularists argue are objective and universally binding. Meanwhile, the upper-storey is reserved for matters of religion, morality, and personal belief, which are treated as subjective and non-binding. This model implies that one can engage with the world in a purely rational, neutral manner without any underlying worldview assumptions. However, this notion is fundamentally flawed, as no one approaches reality without presuppositions. Even the supposed “objectivity” of secular thought is shaped by deeply ingrained humanistic assumptions.
The inconsistency of this framework becomes evident when discussing the sanctity of life in the context of abortion. Imagine a medical ethics debate at a national health conference. If one argues against abortion by citing scientific research on fetal development—pointing out that an unborn child has a beating heart by six weeks, can feel pain by twenty weeks, and exhibits distinct human DNA from conception—the argument is welcomed as a legitimate contribution to the discussion. It is considered a factual, empirical case that can be debated within the secular framework.
However, if someone argues that abortion is wrong because mankind is made in the image of God and life is sacred from conception, the response is markedly different. The argument is dismissed as religious imposition, with critics insisting that personal faith should not dictate public policy. Even if the moral claim is consistent with natural law and historically upheld ethical principles, it is excluded simply because it acknowledges divine authority. This reveals the double standard: secularism allows moral claims as long as they are framed in humanistic, materialist terms, but it outright rejects any appeal to God’s law. In doing so, it does not eliminate religious assumptions from public discourse—it merely replaces Christian morality with a secular ideology that functions as its own form of religious commitment.
Historically, the West did not make such distinctions. Christian morality was acknowledged in public discourse, and references to biblical authority were not seen as out of place. For example, in a 1906 Senate debate in Canada, a Liberal Senator named James McMullen asked, in regards to the Ten Commandments, why all the commandments were confirmed by national legislation and not that of the Sabbath. He even directly quoted Scripture in his argument. Such a statement today would be met with hostility, as secularism insists that religious convictions be confined to private life. Yet, this demand is itself a religious claim, as it presupposes that secular humanism is the rightful authority over public discourse. The illusion of neutrality becomes evident when we recognize that secularism is not an absence of religious commitment but a replacement of Christianity with another worldview.
How else might I expose this hypocrisy? Perhaps by highlighting how secular institutions, particularly universities, operate under the guise of neutrality while actively promoting humanistic values. Professors, for example, curate curricula that reflect their secular biases, determining what questions are worth asking and what knowledge can be considered legitimate. Meanwhile, Christian perspectives are often marginalized or outright excluded. This is not neutrality—it is the enforcement of a particular worldview under the pretense of objectivity. The same applies to moral and cultural issues, where secular “tolerance” is often intolerant of Christian beliefs that challenge prevailing social norms.
Ultimately, the myth of secular neutrality is nothing more than a veil for a new form of religious commitment—one that enthrones mankind as his own god, echoing the rebellion of Adam and Eve in the Garden. As the Christian thinker Joseph Boot explains, no culture can be neutral. Every society is shaped by a dominant worldview that governs its laws, institutions, and public discourse. The question is, which worldview is the most rational, the most logically consistent, and the one from which man’s freedom and flourishment is assured? Neither Islam nor secularism is the answer. We’ve seen Stalin, Mao, and other oppressive secularist examples in the recent history of the West. Secularism is not what people think it to be, it is not the absence of faith but the enthronement of humanism in place of Christianity. The supposed neutrality of the public sphere is thus a deception, a false reality designed to suppress the truth of God while promoting an alternative faith—one in which man rules as his own ultimate authority.
Part III: Life Is Religion (13:45-17:45)
The Global Imams Council may insist that religion must be relegated to the private sphere, but such a position is neither practical nor realistic. Religion cannot be excluded from politics, education, media, or any other facet of life because it is intrinsic to the human condition. As the late Dr. H. Evan Runner famously declared, “Life is Religion.” Though he coined the phrase, the insight behind it long predates his time: faith is not an optional add-on to human existence—it is an inescapable function of mankind.
Secularists often claim that while Christians have faith, atheists, agnostics, and other unbelievers do not. But this is a fundamental misunderstanding. Faith is as essential to human existence as reasoning; it is never a question of faith versus reason, but rather of which object one places faith in. Every person lives out of faith in something. Even those who reject God do so in faith—faith in their own autonomy, in human reason, or in some other guiding principle. Bertrand Russell, for example, was not a Christian, yet his writings reveal his deeply held convictions. He placed his faith in human autonomy, in the supremacy of reason, and in what he perceived to be a noble defiance of an indifferent universe. His essay A Free Man’s Worship is a case in point.
Russell may not have worshipped the true God, but he still worshipped. His faith rested in the supposed nobility of autonomous human reason, even in the face of ultimate meaninglessness. Like all who reject God, he “worships at the shrine his own hands have built.” Yet Scripture testifies to the exclusivity of true worship: “Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one” (Isa. 44:8b).
Evan Runner often reminded his students at Calvin College that every person is religious: The question is not if man will worship, but whom he will worship. This reality was starkly evident when Runner and his classmates, as young students, were challenged by then academic Henry Bradford Smith to abandon their respective faiths and approach philosophy with an “open mind.” But this was a deception of the worst kind—an invitation not to discard faith, but simply to adopt a different one. Smith himself was committed to a faith: faith in the supposed neutrality and autonomy of human reason.
Runner exposed this illusion, teaching that life is, rather, seamless—woven of whole cloth, without dualisms. There is no sphere of existence in which man is not religious. Either he stands in service of the one true God, or he serves an idol. There is no neutral ground. This is why Christians must reject the false sacred-secular divide imposed by modern thought. Faith is not a compartment of life; it is fundamental to our very being. The question is never whether man will have faith, but where that faith will be directed—toward God or toward an idol.
Understanding that “life in its entirety is religion” reshapes our view of every aspect of human life. Runner helped his students recognize that every person is, at heart, a religious being. This realization leads to an unavoidable question: How then shall we live? Not in private, as secularism demands, but as whole beings in the totality of created reality. How then shall we live? The answer lies in rejecting the artificial divisions imposed by secular thought and living faithfully in every aspect of life—before the face of God (Coram Deo). Which God? The only true God, as understood from the only rational, logically consistent worldview there is, the one which undergirded Western development, the God of Christian theism.
Did You Know? (17:49-19:06)
During the French regime in New France, the church was more than a spiritual institution—it was a cornerstone of social order, education, and welfare. While the bishop exercised authority from afar, parish priests played an active role in community life, using their sermons to address social issues such as drunkenness and disorder. By the 1750s, the church had become a major landholder, controlling nearly a quarter of seigneurial lands, which provided vital revenue to sustain its institutions. Its influence extended beyond Catholic communities, as it navigated relationships with Protestant Huguenots and grappled with a persistent shortage of priests in the colony.
Religious institutions shaped daily life through education and charitable work. Jesuits and Ursulines ran schools, primarily in urban centers, while the church oversaw hospitals and provided care for the elderly and infirm. Populist religion thrived, particularly in rural areas, where folklore and supernatural beliefs remained strong—though, unlike New England, New France never experienced witch hysteria. By the year 1760, the colony had developed a distinct Canadian clergy, with most parish priests being locally born, signaling a shift in the church’s identity and influence.
Recommended Reading (19:07-20:23)
This week’s recommended reading is H. Evan Runner’s The Relation of the Bible to Learning, which offers a foundational exploration of the Christian’s calling to academic and intellectual pursuits. Compiling his lectures from two pivotal student conferences in 1959 and 1960, Runner challenges readers to recognize the Bible as central to every sphere of learning. As a professor of philosophy at Calvin College for three decades, Runner’s influence on Reformed scholarship was profound, and his lectures laid the groundwork for a distinctly biblical approach to education. Addressing an audience of students, teachers, and ministers—many of whom had emigrated from the Netherlands to Canada—he sought to inspire a rigorous, scripturally rooted engagement with scholarship.
Presented under the sponsorship of the Association for Reformed Scientific Studies (later the Association for the Advancement of Christian Scholarship), these lectures reflect Runner’s deep conviction that Christian education must be governed by an uncompromising commitment to the authority of Scripture. Delivered in Unionville, just north of Toronto, they spoke to a burgeoning Reformed community eager to cultivate a robust intellectual tradition. Today, his insights remain as relevant as ever, providing a compelling vision for integrating faith and learning in an age often marked by secularism and fragmentation.
Closing Words
Thanks for listening to The Confederation Report, this podcast is brought to you by the Cántaro Institute. Visit our website at cantaroinstitute.org for more information. For books to read on worldview, philosophy, and theology, visit our store at cantaroinstitute.store
We’ll meet again next week.
Documentation and Additional Reading
Toronto Sun (Bryan Passifiume)
Global Imams Council calls on Canada to stamp out Islamic extremism