Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
Christian Nationalism Creates the Need for the Secular

Christian Nationalism Creates the Need for the Secular

Last updated on: June 4, 2024 at 11:22 am by Darrell Lackey

0 Comments

Christian Nationalism Creates the Need for the Secular 2024-06-04T11:22:39-07:00 Darrell Lackey

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I have two primary conceptions of the secular in the sense of a space. First, following John Milbank, I think it to be entirely fancied. Ontologically, in a core sense, there is no secular—it doesn’t exist. It had to be imagined.

If one is a Christian or believes in the gods of the philosophers/major religions, then they know that God/or ground of all being—is the one, “who is in all places and fills all things.”

To believe there is a space, a realm, whether in the law, culture, social and political structures, or material/physical reality that is devoid of God’s presence or creative power is simply to admit a hard atheism. Now, perhaps the atheist is correct. That’s another matter.

Logically though, if we believe in the Trinitarian Christian God, gods of the philosophers/major religions, or even a transcendent aspect to existence, then the secular defined as void of such could not exist. It’s simply an abstract idea, an understanding in one’s mind that arises from mostly circumstantial and historical reasons.

Second, I think the secular is entirely necessary, practical, and operates as a barrier to, especially, Christian nationalism. See here and here.

Many evangelicals and fundamentalist associate the “secular” with being anti-religion or anti-God but probably a better understanding is to see the secular as a time frame. From a Christian perspective, rather than describing a space of neutrality or devoid of spirit/presence, it stands for the time between the ascension of Christ and the Parousia—Christ’s coming again.

And the governing powers, the state, nation, or public authorities have a legitimate place in this time between the times. Theologian Michael Horton writes:

“Yet if, as both Catholic and Reformed traditions have held, there is such a thing as nature that does not reduce to naturalism, then why can’t the secular be a way of talking about the status of certain creaturely entities (persons, places, things) not ontologically but eschatologically—that is, in terms of the use that God makes of them in a particular period of redemptive history?…the secular is a time when that which is other than the church is upheld by God’s providential Word in common grace…thus, ‘the secular’ is not a non-theological space, but a time when cult and culture have not yet been reunited.” (Pg. 52)

Thus, there is no reason to simply assume the “secular” is anti-religion or anti-Christian. Just because a new law or policy reduces a religious person’s privilege or restricts them from discriminating against others doesn’t mean the secular is anti-religion. In fact, in many of those instances, God may be using those very forces to move us in a more just and ethical direction. The Spirit blows where it will.

States, governing authorities, whether in very secular states or in states where religion and civil government are porous, are both capable of bad decisions, injustice, and a plethora of other failings. Such has much more to do with our being fallible people than it does the creation of a space called the secular or the fact religion sometimes plays a significant role in the public square.

Putting all that aside, I want to focus on another reason the secular is important. Whether it is Islamic fundamentalism like we see in Iran and other Middle Eastern countries, or Christian fundamentalism, something has to exist to keep them from imposing their minority views upon the majority and those who do not hold to their faith. This has become especially important given the rise of Christian nationalism.

I can hear the evangelical/fundamentalist/nationalist objection: “But isn’t the secular doing that very thing, imposing it’s view upon the rest of us—some group is always imposing their morality on others.”

While I would agree there is always some morality, some world-view, some philosophy that inhabits and underlies every law, policy, and political decision making, leading it to prevail in a culture/nation, I would disagree with the word “imposing” and would counter that the process of how such comes to prevail is critical.

What the evangelical/fundamentalist/nationalist (EFNs) don’t seem to understand is what’s noted here by Dr. Robert A. Markus:

“Reconciling approval of a society which reflects all our beliefs and our value system with acknowledging the liberty of others to reject our beliefs and values must begin with affirming that we are free and equal moral persons, with our own moral claims, and entitled to respect for our different moral commitments. This is presumably part of the meaning of the Christian conception of love, with the obligation it imposes to respect the integrity of others…what Augustine shares with political thinkers who embrace some such version of ‘overlapping consensus’ is the view that there is a shared core of social ethics which binds people together in a nation-community, while leaving them free to adhere to their own various beliefs.” (Pgs. 66-67)

If the EFNs feel their views and beliefs are not recognized and other views have been “imposed” on them, they have to asked themselves how that has happened in a democracy and in a land where they have been completely free to live their lives and share their faith. Further, in a land where they have held a privilege and a power, far greater than other groups, from the inception of the country.

The simple truth is that they have failed to build a majority consensus of people who share their beliefs, especially in the areas of science, biology, sexual ethics, marriage, abortion, and sexuality in general. This doesn’t mean that a majority doesn’t share their beliefs, for example, in loving one’s neighbor and caring for the least of these. Of course, the EFNs don’t seem to care about a consensus in those areas—they want to impose their views in those other areas upon the entire nation.

Whether they like it or not, a majority of Christians and non-Christians, through a long process of culture building, have had their views prevail in the cultural and social arena; and, in a democracy, this consensus almost always eventually translates into the political realm and law. This is not “imposing” one’s views on others. It is the result of a long and arduous process of culture building, education, and consensus seeking that has to happen long before there are political results.

We see the folly of EFNs in the matter of abortion. Rather than culture building and working toward changing hearts and minds, they opted, not exclusively but primarily, for political mobilization and winning elections. Now we see the backlash because a majority of people do not agree with their views in this area. The same goes for same-sex marriage and a host of other cultural issues.

EFNs: When you are in the minority and don’t like a new law or cultural direction, here’s a thought: Don’t like abortion? Then don’t have one. Don’t like same-sex marriage? Then don’t marry someone of the same sex. Don’t like gender changes? Then don’t have one. No one is “imposing” those choices on you.

The secular arose for many reasons due both to philosophical and theological moves and historical circumstances. Volumes have been written. However, we must not forget a key reason: The 17th Century Wars of Religion, which resulted in the decimation of much of Western Europe.

Here we read:

“The two ways of defining the secular that I am suggesting seem to be related to the two meanings of ‘secularism’ distinguished by Charles Taylor. Taking the Wars of Religion of the seventeenth century, ‘the search in battle-fatigue and horror for a way out of them’ (32), as the starting point of modern Western secularism…” (Pg. 7)

The rise of Christian Nationalism could lead to a new civil war and even wars of religion in other lands. Once a person believes in a strict “saved” and “unsaved” world, along with a divine right to rule and impose their vision on the “lost,” a great many evil deeds are sure to follow. And all in the name of “God.”

Thus, ironically, Christian Nationalism and fundamentalism, in general, creates the very need for the secular to begin with.

I have a Patreon Page—please consider supporting my writing.

Also, check out my new book.

Uncategorized

Christian nationalism

heresy

Secular

Previous Post

November 18, 2023

Evangelicals and Barabbas: Who Will They Choose?

Next Post

May 25, 2024 Cruelty is the Point

What does "Ebenezer" mean in Hebrew?

Select your answer to see how you score.

House of the Lord Gift from God Stone of Help City of Refuge