Fall 2023 · Vol. 52 No. 2 · pp. 173–175
Book Review
Religious Freedom in a Secular Age
Michael Bird. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Reflective, 2022. 187 pages.
In this modest but insightful volume, Michael Bird, Academic Dean and Lecturer in New Testament at Ridley College in Melbourne, Australia, writes to make a case for “liberty, equality and secular government.” He is addressing what is often a poorly understood meaning of “secular” as it relates to government. Such misunderstanding can exist both for those in and outside government and is especially important as we consider how we as Christians see and speak for ourselves in a world in which we might be viewed as aliens.
For many persons today, their notion is that “secular” must mean that any religious or faith perspective must be excluded from the public square. Worship and faith should be restricted to church, mosque, or temple settings but have no place elsewhere. According to such an understanding of secular, a Christian voice ought not to be heard in the public square.
However, many Christians would like to see a government that is actively sympathetic to them. This has often found expression in recent American presidencies and certainly here in Canada, which runs the risk of “marrying national and religious identities.”
In contrast, Bird argues for the true nature of secularism, “not an attack on religion, but . . . a political settlement designed for creating space for people of all faiths (or) none.” As Christians, we should not be arguing for a privileged position but for all groups whatever our faith. Furthermore, he wants such secularism to be seen as freeing rather than limiting religious expression. “Religious freedom should not be grudgingly permitted as much as enthusiastically embraced as a key mechanism for ensuring a free and fair multicultural, democratic society.” If that is not done, everyone loses.
Bird is realistic, about a “potentially uneasy relationship between the state and religion.” Hence he calls for Christians to adopt what he calls the “Thessalonian strategy” as a way maintaining a Christian witness in a post-Christian society. This is “offering an intelligent and compelling alternative to militant secularism.” And he encourages Christians to embrace “a grand new age of apologetics by being prepared to defend the Christian faith and the freedom of all faiths in a secular age.” Bird believes the Apostle Paul sets an example in Acts 17, when he visits Thessalonica that suggests a confrontive approach. Paul and Silas had a “well-earned reputation of turning the world upside down.” It was Jesus-centered, gospel-centered, subversive. They were not political activists; rather, they offered a more compelling worldview. Bird says he is “advocating [for] a Christian-sponsored cultural pluralism in which all religions are free and {174} respected within a diverse culture under a secular government.” Such a culture will give Christians (and others too) great freedom to witness to their beliefs and live out their faith. It is a strategy that will help Christians avoid “the seductions of civil religion.”
Regarding militant secularism, we need only think of the wording of the preamble to Bill C-4, the so-called anti-conversion therapy legislation passed by our Canadian government. It states that conversion therapy causes harm to society because it is “based on and propagates myths and stereotypes about sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression.” A growing number of Canadian examples of state interference with Christian practice can easily be found. Law societies in several provinces refused to accept graduates of Trinity Western University’s law school, just as TWU’s education grads also met with resistance because of certain ethical practices required of TWU students. Presently, medical practitioners and nursing homes face serious challenges for their refusal to participate in medical assistance in dying (MAiD).
In his book, Bird explains how various versions of secularism pose challenges to religious freedom. He calls it a way of creating “appropriate spaces for religion to be pursued . . . and, on the other hand, [to] establish spaces that are desacralized to make them common to all, irrespective of someone’s faith or lack of faith.” It was exactly this that led a group of us to organize a Conference on Faith and the Media in Ottawa some years ago with all the major religious groups in Canada present to talk about how we might help the media understand how our faiths directed our actions. We saw it as an exercise in creating a civic culture that respected all faiths or no faith. As Bird states, “Secularism should not be regarded as the removal of religion from the public square; rather, it is the separation of power between church and state and the freedom of conscience in matters of religion.”
This view of religious freedom is a contribution that came out of medieval European Christianity, he argues. By contrast, the predicament of the Middle East is the “absence of a view of a secular civilization in Islamic religion,” according to Bird’s quotation of an Orthodox bishop in Lebanon.
Part of the context here arises out of the enormous pressure being placed on faith communities such as ours to become LGBTTQ* affirming in the face of long biblical interpretive traditions that would not support such affirmation. Even for single persons to dissent today invites national attention: think of recent NHL players who did so. Moreover, the process of desacralization has become so strong that it is the practice of believers that is now coming to be seen as evil, the Bible as the source of prejudice, intolerance, and hate, and virtue the mantle only of those with “progressive” {175} values. Orthodox Christians, especially those of evangelical persuasion, are increasingly viewed as aliens within their cultures. Bird acknowledges this dynamic, admitting that “It is understandable that people will not be predisposed to think kindly of religious peoples. Religious communities have been complicit, apathetic and irresponsible in allowing evil and injustice to prosper in plain sight.”
How, then, are we to respond? As noted above, Bird suggests that Christians embrace a “Thessalonian strategy.” He says it can work best in a society that practices “confident pluralism” where victory is “not vanquishing your adversaries, but winning their respect, living at peace with them and affirming their right to be who they are.” He argues against trying to restore what he calls a “Christian America” (or Canada): that is, get every Canadian “converted, baptized and enrolled to vote.” Nor is he in favor of thinking of ourselves as “Christians in exile.” We are citizens who’ve been “outvoted literally or metaphorically,” but we still have the rights of citizens. Some are suggesting what has been called the “Benedict option,” a form of community life that isolates itself from the surrounding culture. It is “retreatist rather than redemptive,” Bird says, losing its vocation to the world. Nor does he advocate for an option called “faithful presence,” which argues against trying to change the culture and instead seeks to use individuals and institutions to “make disciples and serve the common good.”
More could be said about Religious Freedom in a Secular Age. Bird is certain to challenge with his observations and suggestions. Clearly, we live in a time when we find ourselves face to face with many people of other faiths and no faith. How can we foster a culture that offers a way to live together with a generous spirit and resist government pressures to force faith and practice into narrow confines of its making? As should be clear to any of us, that’s the challenge we face.
