Reflecting on Reflections on A Secular Age
I begin this post by recognizing it is actually the first of a two part series, reflecting on Charles Taylor’s A Secular Age. Well, really, this first part is more of a reflection on reflections of Taylor’s work, while I envision the second post to focus more on Taylor’s thesis itself. I hesitate to analyze too much of Taylor’s work through Jamie Smith’s excellent reflection[1], especially as we’ll be exploring A Secular Age itself next week. But I’m confident Smith will be the perfect travel companion to navigate its vast pages.
The odd reality is that, with my ears attuned to hear him, I suddenly discover references to Taylor’s text at every turn. As a Christian in the early decades of the twenty-first century, I am wading through a pool of many options as I choose what I believe and how I live in response to that. Without doubt, according to Taylor, I live in a “secular age.” Though what he means by that is in contrast to the common secularization theory of the “diminishment” of religion.[2] The difference is noted in what we feel rather than think; “It’s more a matter of the difference between what we take for granted—what we don’t give a second thought—and what people of that [previous] age[s] took for granted.”[3]
Briefly, for example, Smith (and Taylor) notes that the age of secular2 “disenchants” the world, among its other implications, so by the time we enter secular3 (the present age), the transcendent is diminished and only immanence remains. But we are actually quite fascinated by ghosts and demons and magic realms in this age (think about our popular movies and books). We like to imagine the possibility of them[4], which fits well with Taylor’s account of the shift of meaning from “’the world’ into ‘the mind.’”[5]
I’m eager to explore more of Taylor’s thesis in-depth in the next post, delving into his massive work on my own. But as I allude above, the references to Taylor’s thesis are substantial. Earlier this week, as I set down Smith’s text for the evening, I briefly picked up the most recent edition of The Englewood Review of Books (Advent 2017) and turned to the next unread book review before heading to bed. And there before me was a review of a newly released book based on applying the ideas of A Secular Age to faith formation within the church! Andrew Root’s newest book, Faith Formation in a Secular Age, explores the distinctions of Taylor’s three types of secularism, especially the second and third types. For instance, “in secular2,… faith formation becomes a battle to keep the youth participating in congregations, thereby maintaining our hold on that particular religious space.”[6] Recognizing we are living in a secular3 age, the church can respond “against a culture that eschews transcendent experience; Root argues that we experience transcendence when we stand alongside and minister to our neighbor in their own death experiences (brokenness, lostness). In doing so, ‘we find the real presence of Jesus’.”[7] The reviewer of Root’s text concludes enticingly that it’s the first of three books Root plans to use to delve into A Secular Age and its “implications for Christian ministry.”
What fascinates me about this book (besides wanting to add it to my growing queue of post-doctoral “fun” reading) is the noise being generated by Taylor’s tome. More than once Smith contrasted Taylor’s thesis with Douthat’s Bad Religion (which suggests to me that it might be worthwhile to re-read the book I’d previously disregarded).[8] And multiple texts reviewed in my favorite book review journal build their foundations off of Taylor’s theory.[9] What this suggests to me is that A Secular Age is becoming—or has become—foundational in the exploration of cultural theory, of where we’ve come from and who we are today; or, in Taylor’s words, the “conditions of belief.”[10]
Truthfully, as a primary audience of Taylor’s book, as Smith suggests (“Secular Age amounts to a cultural anthropology for urban missions”[11]), one who relates to the world easily with novelists, stories, and poetry[12], much of Smith’s summary of Taylor’s book resonates with me, and I’m chomping at the bit to explore more of it. I want to look at the social imaginary (my friend Chris Smith does just that in Reading for the Common Good[13]) and the temptation of nostalgia as a product of modernity[14]. I’m curious about the fullness of poetry or a birdsong transporting us to a sense of transcendence, especially for my friends who don’t have other recognitions of the divine (say, Christ). I wonder about the “placement of religion” beyond just “human flourishing.”[15] I sense that Taylor’s discussion on the Age of Authenticity and the value placed on choice will help me understand today’s social landscape better.[16]
And hopefully most important, understanding the secular age we live in gives us an enhanced ability to know and appreciate others better.
[1] James K.A. Smith, How (Not) to be Secular: Reading Charles Taylor, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014.
[2] In Taylor’s thesis, this theory would be in line with what he terms secular2 (Smith, 21).
[3] Smith, 28.
[4] Contra the secular1 age, which didn’t imagine this possibility, because this was a reality taken for granted in that age.
[5] Ibid., 29.
[6] Jim Honig, “The Whole Enterprise of Faith Formation” Review of Faith Formation in a Secular Age by Andrew Root Englewood Review of Books Advent 2017, vol 8, n1, 26.
[7] Ibid. If I follow Taylor’s thesis (via Smith) accurately, I’m not convinced that our culture “eschews transcendent experience”; rather, it’s looked for not in experiencing a supreme deity, but in the “fullness” of life.
[8] See Smith, 85n7, where he compares Taylor’s “Age of Authenticity” with Douthat’s “Age of Heresy”.
[9] One of my favorite titles referencing it is Zombies, Cylons, Faith, and Politics at the End of the World, in which “the authors take great care throughout this book to continually connect Taylor’s theories to the cultural artifacts that they use to illuminate our present social condition.” See also Acedia and its Discontents: Metaphysical Boredom in an Empire of Desire, among others.
[10] Smith, 18.
[11] Ibid., xi.
[12] cf. Smith 24, 137.
[13] C. Christopher Smith, Reading for the Common Good, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016, 41-49. cf. http://englewoodreview.org/c-christopher-smith-reading-for-the-common-good-review/
[14] K.A. Smith, 134.
[15] Ibid., 83.
[16] Ibid., 85.
About the Author
Katy Drage Lines
In God’s good Kingdom, some minister like trees, long-standing, rooted in a community. They embody words of Wendell Berry, “stay years if you would know the genius of the place.” Others, however, are called to go. Katy is one of those pilgrims. A global nomad, Katy grew up as a fifth generation Colorado native, attended college & seminary and was ordained in Tennessee, married a guy from Pennsylvania, ministered for ten years in Kenya, worked as a children’s pastor in a small church in Kentucky, and served college students in a university library in Orange County, California. She recently moved to the heart of America, Indianapolis, and has joined the Englewood Christian Church community, serving with them as Pastor of Spiritual Formation. She & her husband Kip, have two delightful boys, a college junior and high school junior.7 responses to “Reflecting on Reflections on A Secular Age”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
It was certainly interesting reading a book about a book. I’m also looking forward to finishing Charles Taylor’s “take” on secularity. A good friend on mine, with a philosophy PhD, said that he read parts of Taylor’s work and only returns to it periodically. Hmmmm. Sounds like Jason?
Anyway, so we’ll add it “to (our) growing queue of post-doctoral “fun” reading”. I’m serious. I really do want to understand how to relate to folks who think very differently than I do. We can’t help them if we don’t understand how they are hurting, or if they can’t even identify the “longing” that Taylor says everyone has even if they can’t define it.
Plow on!!
Katy, sounds like you really resonated with Smith. I agree, reading his work took some time to “attune” to but when you did, you could pick up on some themes of religion conflicting or integrating with the secular while being influenced by culture. Although I can’t exactly relate with your desire to explore more of his work, I’m glad you’re looking forward to it. I appreciated your enthusiasm and perspective on a work I struggled to find much interest in. It has inspired me to give our next read a closer look. Thank you.
“The difference is noted in what we feel rather than think”
So, I am writing this blog response while on a mission trip in San Francisco… the most unchurched major city in America.
That above quote really resonated with what I see here. San Francisco is about freedom… and restrictions. For example, you can walk around totally naked without fear of being arrested, but if you put food trash in a recycle bin you will get a steep fine.
This city is filled with spiritual people. Many of the people here are spiritual, but their spirituality is connected to how they feel. Scriptures and rules and creeds are of no use if they do not make you feel good.
Great post, Katy. Like you, I am amazed at the references to Taylor in much of what I read. Did see it before. I also find it interesting that secular people—because they do not necessarily believe in God—are often labeled as not “spiritual.” They may be disenchanted, most I know, who would consider themselves to be secular are deeply spiritual with God as an option as well as nature etc. etc. The immanent framework, I think, is key to understanding the heart of secularism. Why go to a transcendent being when answers we need are discoverable within our present framework. No need to transcend the fence for the answers; but if you choose to do that, that’s okay too. There remains a deep spiritual longing —how we meet that longing and who we choose to look to fill that longing is the trademark and brand of the secular age.
‘What this suggests to me is that A Secular Age is becoming—or has become—foundational in the exploration of cultural theory, of where we’ve come from and who we are today; or, in Taylor’s words, the “conditions of belief.”’
This is exactly why I resonated with Smith’s book and am looking forward to digging into (parts of) Taylor’s. If I were still teaching history and Bible classes, I would incorporate these thoughts into my syllabi so we could better track how we got here as a nation and a world. What it is about secularism that has driven us to extreme nationalism? Does the church even realize that saying things like, “We voted for a president, not a pastor,” is a product of the very secularism they shout down daily?
Katy, you said ‘the difference is noted in what we feel rather than think; “It’s more a matter of the difference between what we take for granted—what we don’t give a second thought—and what people of that [previous] age[s] took for granted.”[3] – This is something that really stuck out to me too…. my head was spinning at much of this… but this stuck with me the idea of what we feel instead of what we think…. as sort of the pendulum swinging back from the enlightenment possibly?
Katy you pose a great question “I wonder about the “placement of religion” beyond just “human flourishing.”” I think that is something we have to ponder. If we boil our faith down to just human flourishing, it places us (humans) at the center and not Christ. It bears the thought of how do we share in a narrative that tells a story about Christ that places Him at the core of our human existence.