The transcript of my interview with Benjamin Wiker (who wrote Ten Books that Screwed Up the World) of To the Source is up. We talk about my book The End of Secularism.
Here’s a clip where I answer Wiker’s question as to whether I am calling Christians to be anti-secular activists:
Baker: I think Christians should kindly refuse the invitation to take their religious activity and speech private. They should maintain the validity of the faith for their approach to community life and politics. They should point out that secularism provides little guidance for dealing with big political questions and that the values have to come from somewhere. Too often, secularists selectively crib Christian values without acknowledging the source. We didn’t just get here by accident. We don’t appreciate things like liberty, equality, and democracy by sheer accident. Christianity has been a major civilizational force.
Christians should also learn about their own faith. Religion is not a commodity. Christianity is not just another religion. Don’t accept the idea that your faith is about emotion and pure mysticism and the no one else can understand it. Realize that the Christian faith makes public claims about events that happened in history. Stick close to the resurrection of Christ and you won’t go far wrong in challenging the secular orthodoxy.
(The relentless flacking of The End of Secularism has now officially infected Evangel!)
Related posts:
October 29th, 2009 | 8:28 am | #1
I’d love to flack for your book, Hunter. And I honor you for flacking it — if you don’t, who will really?
And isn’t that actually the point of your statement, above? That the privatization of faith is really a denial of the faith — a tacit hiding or shaming of the source of values away from the common discourse?
October 29th, 2009 | 10:08 am | #2
Frank, that is exactly the point of the statement. Privatization of the faith is denial is marginalization is a failure to witness, etc.
October 29th, 2009 | 12:01 pm | #3
Isn’t that exactly what we’re doing, privatizing our faith, when we appeal to secular standards of tolerance to make our views simply one of many instead of true truth?
October 29th, 2009 | 2:19 pm | #4
I’m confused. Are you saying the United States should not be, by law, a pluralistic society? And that the federal government ought to promote Christianity and advocate on its behalf?
October 29th, 2009 | 2:44 pm | #5
I’m not sure who you are directing your question to, R Hampton, but I am not “saying the United States should not be, by law, a pluralistic society.” But the nature of our society is such that some worldviews are dominant over others. Evangelical pragmatism so focused on neutrality and sanitized arguments is, in my opinion, a failure to witness.
October 29th, 2009 | 2:56 pm | #6
Sarah,
The questions were open to all, but since you answered – what do you mean by a worldview that is dominant but isn’t privatized faith?
October 29th, 2009 | 4:08 pm | #7
If a worldview is dominant that’s because its adherents are functioning with an outward expression of their worldview. When this is the case, the worldview is no longer privatized. Evangelical Christianity is losing its influence because it’s agreed to lose its voice in favor of public language and appeals to the authority of other worldviews.
October 29th, 2009 | 6:04 pm | #8
Sarah,
I’m sorry, but I’m having trouble following your argument.
I do hear from (some) Evangelical Christians that the only way to be saved is through Jesus, that the Bible is inerrant and to be understood literally, and that they actively participate in public debates, demonstrations, etc. for various Christian causes like ending abortion. I know this to be true because – among other reasons – I keep up-to-date with the Barna Group. They provide excellent analysis of the trends and divisions within born-again Christians.
So is your complaint simply that not enough Christians follow this example (in which case I would agree – and in which case I don’t see how privatizing faith is applicable) or is it something else?
October 29th, 2009 | 6:26 pm | #9
I want to add that the term “privatization” may be the source of my misunderstanding. Because the word is most often used to describe the transfer of ownership/control from the public (government) to the private sector, my interpretation of the comments have been to make Christian belief a public faith, like the Church of England.
Also, I just noticed that Hunter Baker defines Secularism as “public life without God” in contrast to the actual which definition means to be concerned about non-religious things and unconcerned about religion. So what Hunter describes as a kind of public Atheism is in fact a public (governmental) Agnosticism and an intentional equanimity towards the religious and non-religious views of all of its citizens.
October 29th, 2009 | 8:42 pm | #10
R Hampton, I’m not sure how your definition varies from mine. If mine is public life without God and yours is paying attention to non-religious things, but not to religious things, what exactly is the difference?
And then the other issue is, are you so sure you can draw a line between religious things and non-religious things? I argue in the book that it is not so easy to accomplish that feat as you may think.
October 29th, 2009 | 9:42 pm | #11
God and religion are not one in the same. The motto “In God We Trust” applies equally to all monotheists irrespective of their religion. That’s why I say your description of “secularism” is an Atheist public/government and mine (and the Constitution’s) is an Agnostic public/government.
And I do agree it can be difficult at times to draw a line between the secular and the sectarian. But then our system of Justice – with the Supreme Court at the top – was tasked by the Founders to settle those debates.
October 30th, 2009 | 10:24 am | #12
R Hampton, I disagree with your second para. My argument in the book is that the constitution specifically avoids settling the debate over secular and sectarian. Buy it and read it! :-)
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact