Tom Chivers defines secularism as “the belief that the state should be neutral towards the religious beliefs of its citizens.”[1] As I read his definition it struck me how different it is from other definitions I have read, and how one’s theological bias can affect their definition. For example, Christians have often defined secularism along the lines of “ordering society as if God did not exist, or His existence is irrelevant.” Tullian Tchividjian defines secularization as “the process through which God and the supernatural are relegated to the fringe of what’s important in society,” adding that “a secularized society is a society that has determined to make God and the supernatural socially irrelevant even if they remain personally engaging. It restricts the relevance of God to the private sphere only. …God may be important individually but he is rather unimportant socially and culturally. He may be alive and well privately but publicly he is dead.”[2]
So is secularism the idea that government should be religiously neutral, or is secularism little more than social atheism? Is it just a matter of perspective?
[1]Tom Chivers, “Atheism may be lonely, but it’s honest – and the loneliness can be fixed, http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100149264/atheism-may-be-lonely-but-its-honest-and-the-loneliness-can-be-fixed/; Internet; accessed 30 October 2012.
[2]Tullian Tchividjian, “The Irrelevance of God”; available from http://theologica.blogspot.com/2007/07/irrelevance-of-god.html; Internet; accessed 30 July 2007.
Thinking to Believe 
November 19, 2012 at 11:22 am
“Social atheism’, is the reality of what is happening in Government, Education and even Science (in interpreting the data). When it comes to ones passion, all of these ereas listed usually are ones passions if pursed full time, so when one draws from their well spring to make aplicatiom, it can’t help but become “social”. The definition of Tom Chivers is very good, but like socialism (how ironic), it will never work because of each one’s chore, or well spring (Self) .
LikeLike
November 20, 2012 at 10:08 am
Interesting topic……
I think Secularism is a necessary evil that needs to co-exist with believers in the world. I do not want to live in a religious society because it will no doubt degenerate into the dark ages again as those in positions of power and influence will make a mess of it again.
The Christian mandate is not to “take over” the world so it follows our ethics although we applaud and do our best to promote righteousness and justice whenever we can.
As for religion/God being irrelevant in a Secular society, this is where believers need to show by their good works, not their religion, that GOD is not irrelevant. As believers we need to show the love of Jesus Christ in a radical way so that the Secular world will notice and will be forced to admit that our ethic is irresistible and that it works ! And if asked why we behave this way, you tell them, this is how God wants me to behave and I’m following Him. The only way to make a difference is to touch a person’s heart by sincere acts of love and kindness. Religious doctrine will not help the Secularist/Atheist. On top of that we don’t have to convert anyone, God is the One who converts people, not us. If anything, we get in the way sometimes as we try to strap people down with various doctrines and such that they get repelled by our over-zealous religiosity.
It’s time for believers to take notice. We are living in a society where people would allow and even welcome Government to dictate their rights to them. Religion doesn’t work, the very word repels the Secular world. As Christians we need to be wise and start to show our Christianity instead of just talking about it on blogs like this (no offense Jason, I like this forum). The world is looking for a head, a leader, a lord to have over their lives. Let’s show them how Great the Lord of Lords really is !!
Naz
LikeLike
November 20, 2012 at 2:08 pm
Naz,
I don’t think our choices are only between a completely secular government and a theocracy. But if God exists, and if He has issued moral commands, then for a government to ignore them – or worse yet, put laws into effect that contradict God’s laws – is to pretend we are living in one kind of world when in fact we are living in another. That cannot be good for society.
I’m not suggesting that we legislate what people are to believe. But we can, should, must, and do legislate how they behave. While I don’t think the government has to legislate against every moral wrong and legislate for every moral good, when we do legislate on matters that are a matter of the moral law, they should be consistent with the moral law. A secular government will not always do so.
I also fear that secularism can never remain neutral with respect to religion. When the driving force of secularism is to act as if there is no God or no one religious truth, eventually religion in general (or a specific religion) will come into conflict with the government, and religion will not win. For example, consider homosexual rights and same-sex marriage. As the State grants these things in the spirit of secularism, religious believers will suffer the consequences. Either they will be punished for exercising their beliefs (particularly business owners who will not offer services to homosexuals, such as wedding photographers who will not shoot a same-sex wedding), or they will have their freedom of speech curtailed (negative comments about homosexuality can be construed as hate speech). I could be wrong, but I’m afraid that secularism will almost invariably lead to anti-religious sentiment and expression from the government.
Again, the solution is not to make the government an arm of religion. That’s not it’s purpose. But a successful government cannot act as if God and His moral law do not exist, and expect to thrive.
Jason
LikeLike
November 30, 2012 at 10:17 pm
I think the standard denotative meaning out of the dictionary is sufficient. All these connotative ideas are a bit verbose and stretch the word beyond the intent.
Secular should just mean temporal things related to the State, as opposed to: Sacred, i.e. eternal things related to the Church. Beyond that is grasping, in my opinion.
Now, fleshing out or categorizing what things are temporal versus eternal, and all that, is a worthy endeavor, but the umbrella label of Secular (or Sacred) doesn’t need to be expanded.
LikeLike
December 11, 2012 at 4:52 pm
Aaron,
I hear you, but the people who are trying to determine how a “secular” government should operate are going well beyond the dictionary definition. That’s why a fuller-orbed view of what it does and does not mean for a government to be “secular” is important.
Jason
LikeLike