Random Reflections on a Book about a Book
I serve at a multi-staff church in Fort Worth, Texas. One of my roles that I have is to develop evangelism strategies for our church. As I review and evaluate plans, strategies, and programs that have to do with leading people to Christ, a word that often comes up is the word “secular.”
This week I read a book about a book about what it means to be secular. The book was How (Not) to be Secular: Reading Charles Taylor by James K.A. Smith. Smith’s book of fewer than 150 pages is a guidebook/summary/commentary on the book The Secular Age by Charles Taylor, an exhaustive work that is almost 900 pages long.
Even though How (Not) to be Secular is a more concise work, it is not a light book. This book is both deep and wide. It pulls valuable nuggets from Taylor’s tome and makes them relevant to the current condition of the church.
Rather than simply summarize Smith’s book about a book, I have chosen to comment on some of the most thought-provoking quotes that I encountered:
“Taylor asserted that ‘a society is secular insofar as religious belief or belief in God is understood to be one option among others, and thus contestable.’“ (Smith, 21)
Originally, the term secular meant “mundane.” Basically, anything that was not sacred was secular. A house was secular, and a church was sacred. A farmer had a secular job and a priest had a sacred one. The farmer might have a fiery passion for God, but he was still “secular.”
The term “secular” eventually become used to mean anti-religious. If you are “secular” you are not a religious person. Your belief system does not value the Christian viewpoint.
This initial quote about Taylor’s view of the secular is interesting. In the passage where this quote is found, Smith is arguing Taylor’s point that if a society holds that it is acceptable to NOT hold to any religious belief, that society is secular.
“What we look back on as ancient ‘art objects’ were, in fact and function, liturgical instruments, etc.” (Smith, 74)
I enjoyed the discussion on how the Reformation and the rise of secularism affected art. Smith points out that art used to have a purely functional purpose. They depicted a reality. Art was used for instruction, politics, etc. As society became secular, art moves from representing reality to creating its own reality. Instead of a painting that showed a real scene, art began to show imagined scenes.
“In this newly fashioned world, closed to anything transcendent, we are left alone without meaning; if there’s to be meaning, it’s something we have to make.” (Smith, 102)
In a post-Christian society, any type of a personal encounter with God is explained away as a psychosocial delusion. Could the rise of extreme sports, thrill-seeking, fad remedies (i.e. essential oils, magnetic bracelets, etc.), and unspiritual spiritual disciplines (i.e.meditation-free yoga) be an indicator of a yearning for something more than this present reality?
“There is a certain irony, however: while the therapeutic was meant to throw off the guilt and burden of spiritual responsibility, and hence the scowl of the clergy and the confessor, ‘now we are forced to go to new experts, therapists, doctors…” (Smith, 107)
Humans were created with a hunger for the eternal. We want to know that our lives have meaning. We need to live our lives in a way that our Creator is pleased. Our need for the spiritual will come out one way or another.
“Our problem is not some penumbra of illness pressing in on our ‘good’ normal; our problem is our ‘normal.’ On the spiritual register, ‘the normal, everyday, beginning situation of the soul is to be partly in the grip of evil.” (Smith, 108)
These words do not fit with today’s society. Many educated people in our society downplay the concept of “evil.” Bad people are not truly bad, they are “misguided” or “misunderstood.” Yet, the Bible teaches that evil is real and powerful. Without “evil” there is no need for the atoning death of Jesus.
“…he is not primarily interested in winning an argument. Rather, his concern is to foster a ‘badly needed’ conversation. How might evangelism and outreach in a secular age be considered for just such a ‘conversation.’ Could unapologetic ‘witnessing’ also involve attentive ‘listening.’” (Smith, 120)
This is an important conversation for pastors and mission leaders to have with their people. Some churches offer deep courses on apologetics for their people. Yet, they do not teach their people how to LISTEN to someone.
“Taylor suggests to those who convert to unbelief ‘because of science’ are less convinced by data and move moved by the form of the story that science tells…The Christian response to such converts to unbelief is not to have an argument about the data or ‘evidences’ but rather to offer an alternative story that offers more robust, complex understanding of the Christian faith.” (Smith, 77)
This is an amazing concept. In past decades, we were taught that secular people have bad beliefs about God. Our job was to memorize the content of books about apologetics in order to win arguments. In essence, evangelism was about dominating your opponent and convincing him/her that he/she was wrong.
Smith proposes that intelligent non-Christians might actually be intrigued by Jesus. Instead of arguing random points about religion, tell the stories about Jesus.
In summary, James K.A. Smith makes some valuable observations via Charles Taylor. Those who are interested in making an impact on future generations can gain insight from How (Not) to be Secular.
Smith, James K. A. How (not) to be secular: reading Charles Taylor. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2015.
Taylor, Charles. A secular age. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007.
About the Author
Stu Cocanougher
9 responses to “Random Reflections on a Book about a Book”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Stu,
There was so much to read and absorb in this book. I like your comment at the end “Instead of arguing random points about religion, tell the stories about Jesus.”
Christian arguments to me are always based on who is right. The point that I have a relationship with God and I believe he has given me insight into the truth. But we all believe that so there the arguments begin.
Jesus asked us to share the Gospel. Not to promote ourselves.
I agree. Yet, we know that the gospel is a stumbling block to some. The gospel sometimes breaks up families. The gospel sometimes gets you fired from your job. The gospel can be extremely counter-cultural.
Stu, Stu, Stu. Even your summary of a summary has so many great points for interaction.
Since we are in a course on Leadership and Global Perspectives, I would like to respond to your comment on ‘apologetics’. Having a good conversation where both really LISTEN to each other does seem to be a problem today. Is it sort of ironic that we push individualism, but we need to have more than one to have a conversation?
I also think that a big take away for me from the book will be how to be able to share with others the answer to their suffering – Jesus. Do I need to develop a new sensitivity to what others are thinking and feeling so that I can have a good conversation? This may fit in with your last point also – just tell the stories about Jesus.
I love the story of Jesus with the Samaritan women (aka the woman at the well).
Jesus was both caring and bold. Jesus engaged the woman in a conversation. They talked about her life, her theology, and her needs.
What a great model for evangelism.
Interesting statements you high-lighted Stu. I especially liked your statement: “Humans were created with a hunger for the eternal. We want to know that our lives have meaning.” Very true words and we have come up with some very creative religions and belief systems to answer our internal question of meaning. Do you find this answered differently with different cultures?
Yes Stu! Jesus is very intriguing and inspiring, and we can forget this when we grow up with him. “Smith proposes that intelligent non-Christians might actually be intrigued by Jesus. Instead of arguing random points about religion, tell the stories about Jesus.” People are hungry for Jesus. Such a great reminder to share His story.
“The term “secular” eventually become used to mean anti-religious. If you are “secular” you are not a religious person. Your belief system does not value the Christian viewpoint.”
My reading of Smith/Taylor is that this “anti-religious” meaning of secular is more attributed to the secular2 of the modern era, whereas our postmodern expression of secular3 is simply that “being religious” or believing in a deity is optional (not anti-religious).
“Could the rise of extreme sports, thrill-seeking, fad remedies (i.e. essential oils, magnetic bracelets, etc.), and unspiritual spiritual disciplines (i.e.meditation-free yoga) be an indicator of a yearning for something more than this present reality?”
This is an interesting question, Stu. While I do think there is some truth to this, I feel as if our longing – the one we were born with – is not so much for the eternal or even transcendent, but the holistic work of shalom. We are WHOLE people who have allowed ourselves to become bifurcated. It is interesting to see how many people who are atheist or agnostic embrace mystery, whole-body wellness, connection to creation, and deep love for the other. They are working toward shalom in much better ways than a great many Christians, but they also cannot achieve it completely because they do not embrace Jesus. How can we come together?
“They are working toward shalom in much better ways than a great many Christians, but they also cannot achieve it completely because they do not embrace Jesus. How can we come together?”
One of the things that I wish we were exposed to more in our DMin. Readings is the concept of Honor/Shame cultures. This area of missiology has so many implications for the way we understand theology.
For so long we have preached a gospel than can be summarized as “if you wan to go to Heaven then you need to trust Jesus.” But what about cultures who are far more concerned about being at peace with their communities than their personal destination in the afterlife?
Stu you teased out some great insights/interactions with Smith’s summary of Taylor. There is so much to process in this weeks reading. I spent time trying to one understand what he was talking about and then attempt to figure out what that means for how we engage in society today. How do we handle the crux that exists with the variety of options versus not believing at all ?