Religious Freedom in a Secular Age: A Christian Case for Liberty, Equality, and Secular Government

by Michael F. Bird

Discover how to responsibly defend religious freedom for all without compromising your personal beliefs. Religious freedom is a bitterly contested issue that spills over into political, public, and online spheres. It's an issue that's becoming ever more heated, and neither of the global political polarities is interested in protecting it. While the political left is openly hostile toward traditional religion, the political right seeks to weaponize it. How can we ensure that "religious freedom" is truly about freedom of one's religion rather than serving an ethno-nationalist agenda? In Religious Freedom in a Secular Age , Michael Bird (New Testament scholar and author of Evangelical Theology ) has four main While Bird does address the recent political administrations in the US, his focus is global. Bird—who lives in Melbourne, Australia—freely admits to his anxiety of the militant secularism surrounding him, but he also strongly critiques the marriage of national and religious identities that has gained ground in countries like Hungary and Poland. The fact is that religion has a lot to contribute to the common good. Religious Freedom in a Secular Age will challenge readers of all backgrounds and beliefs not only to make room for peaceable difference, but also to find common ground on the values of justice, mercy, and equality.

Genres: Politics, Theology, Christian, Nonfiction, Religion, Philosophy

224 pages, Paperback

Published May 3, 2022

About the author

Dr. Michael Bird (Ph.D University of Queensland) is Lecturer in Theology at Ridley Melbourne College of Mission and Ministry. He is the author of several books including Jesus and the Origins of the Gentile Mission (2006), The Saving Righteousness of God (2007), A Bird’s-Eye View of Paul (2008), Colossians and Philemon (2009), Crossing Over Sea and Land: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period (2009), and Are You the One Who is to Come? The Historical Jesus and the Messianic Question (2009).

Reviews

[Glenn Crouch · Rating 5 out of 5]

I very much appreciated this timely book from Aussie Anglican, Michael Bird. I have much to think about, and have already had opportunity to discuss some of the issues raised with family and fellow pastors. I appreciated the good coverage of the situation in both USA and Australia, though a bit more coverage of other Western nations would’ve been welcomed.

I also liked have the Doncaster Declaration included. as it does sit well with the contents of this book - and must admit to my shame, that I hadn’t read it till this book :(

“Secular” and “Secularism” are terms that definitely have a lot of ambiguity and misunderstanding associated with them - in the Media, in social discussions, and in the church. I think the book could do a bit more in combating this, or at least suggesting a way forward when it comes to such terminology.

I also appreciated that the author doesn’t just talk about the “problems” but does offer his “Thessalonian Strategy”.

I was a bit disappointed that there was no Bibliography / Further Reading section at the end.

I very much feel that a much bigger book is needed, and would welcome to see more on this topic from this author!

Highly recommended for all those seriously interest in Religious Freedom.

[Avery Amstutz · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was actually really helpful for me in understanding and defending the Christian origins of secularity. This book is not Anabaptist, but does fit well into the Anabaptist emphasis on free choice as the basis of radical commitment.

[Sean Wilson · Rating 1 out of 5]

This was not a good book.

1. The book was not absolutely void of references to Scripture or theological principle, but it wasn’t much more than that. Scripture says a lot about politics and the civil order, and many of our fathers have turned their minds to these questions, but little engagement can be found with them here.

2. The main argument is that Christendom was so bad that benign secular government is our only feasible choice. This is by no means self-evident and should have been defended rather than assumed. However, Bird generally appeals to the “End of History” assumptions which most of us living have grown up with some version of.

3. It isn’t clear what Bird wants Christians to do with “earthly power”. He is critical of the religious right for pursuing power to achieve their own ends, but he later exhorts Christians “to be ‘in the room where it happens’… and aspire to positions where we can be a positive influence and a positive role model in the world.”

4. The conclusions Bird comes to fall out necessarily from the way he has loaded his definitions. Because Christendom/theocracy is defined as a Bad Thing (“religious fanatics bent on realising their own political eschatologies through violence and oppression”) its flaws are always evidence of its inherent badness. However, he is happy to subdivide secularism into benign and militant forms. When secularism goes to seed, Bird simply distinguishes the benign version from the militant version, and advocates that we roll back a little bit to the benign version from a few years ago. But this is like saying that stage 3 cancer never killed anyone. Bird doesn’t see that militant secularism is not benign secularism that has lost its way, but is rather benign secularism that has come to maturity.

5. Bird mischaracterises Luther’s two kingdoms. Luther’s two kingdoms were concerned with the “inner” kingdom (i.e., the realm of the conscience), and the “outer” kingdom. In Luther’s schema, the church was a “common kingdom” polity as well. What Bird describes is much more like the modern Escondido version than what Luther advocated.

6. Bird makes a “brutally honest” concession towards the end that political pluralism is “not conducive to public unity”. This appears to me a fatal blow to his main thesis: Bird believes that benign secularism is an inherently unstable foundation for a social order, and it is never very far from metastasising into its dystopian militant form… but we must pursue it. It’s the principle of the thing.

There is a lot of very provocative and interesting writing these days about various postliberal options from a number of perspectives, but this is not one of the stronger entries.

I would encourage kings everywhere to continue to kiss the Son as per the existing arrangement.

[Declan Ellis · Rating 5 out of 5]

In a "culture war" defined mostly by mudslinging, Bird's book represents a refreshingly nuanced middle ground. What's best about this book is that I suspect it will offend the conservative Christian as much as the progressive activist.

Recommended.

[Maelen · Rating 2 out of 5]

Religious Freedom in a Secular Age is not concerned with the free exercise of religion on a level playing field, but with concocting excuses for religious organizations to evade or defy regulations that all other parts of society must obey. It is based on a mindset that sees religion as a superior source of rights to the rules and regulations of ordinary secular society, allowing the religious to plead their religion to break the law.

It is written in a far more urbane and cultivated style than some of the coarser examples of modern American evangelistic apologetic: the author is an Australian Anglican. With this background, he is at least interested in making noises toward tolerance of all religions, even non-Christian ones. He does not say that everyone without exception who does not submit to Jesus will be toasted in Hell forever, and I do not think that he believes it. The problem, of course, is that this is what his religion clearly says; the evangelists have the better of the textual argument here. His tolerance reflects well on him, but it is hard to see how it can be doctrinally justified.

What he does have in common with American evangelists is the persecution fetish that seems to characterize many Christians. Having a role model who ended his life by being tortured to death has not been good for their mental health. He seriously believes that there are huge social forces that are focused on scrubbing religious thought from the minds of everyone with the fierce attention of a cook trying to save their favorite utensil after burning a dish. To this end, he wanders through the deserts of obscure journals and quotes sources that not one in a thousand people will have heard of, if they can only demonstrate some hostility to his faith. Like other writers in this field, he is very fond of quoting abstract denunciations of imaginary faults provided by third parties with little or no evidence cited in support (90). He is desperate for someone, anyone, to take him seriously enough to fight him (141). But as Merlin said to Mab in his final episode, “They’re not going to beat you. They’re going to forget you.”

The author has not faced up to the true crisis of religion in the modern world, which is not that it is being persecuted, but that it has become irrelevant. In the Middle Ages, when someone was critically ill, you called the priest and the doctor, and the doctor took a distinctly secondary place. Today, you call the doctor; if a priest is around, he is usually treated with the respect most people display to an occupation that requires academic qualifications, but there is a distinct air of puzzlement about it. What is that fellow here for? The answer of modernity is that they are not here to tend to the patient’s soul, for the patient doesn’t care. They are there to wander about grappling with their own doubts in a society where they no longer have a place or a role.

Persecution would be so much more self-affirming that being ignored. And so he goes spearfishing for persecutions, and is quite happy to serve up cultivated ones when the market won’t give him fresh, at one point jumping from a regulatory overreach in France (ironically motivated by the religious tinge in French nationalism) to a fantasy about the United States all the way to Mainland China, completely ignoring the unlikelihood of the whole tottering rhetorical structure (44-45).

The author makes the self-serving assumption that there is some sort of plot or conspiracy about the modern attitude to religion. He is openly jealous of the “technological priests who return from the sacred grove of Silicon Valley” (11). He might reflect that however shallow the offerings of these “priests” are, they are still more entertaining and significant than the tattered and shopworn legends and platitudes that he is retailing. He asserts that true secularism, which he claims to support, would mean “creating common spaces for the absence of religion and sacred spaces for the freedom of religion” (7), but the state has no business creating “sacred spaces” of any kind. If freedom of thought and freedom of action is respected, with the only restrictions being infringements on other people’s rights, people can create their own sacred spaces anywhere they please.

That “sacred” spaces of his definition are becoming rather scarce is not the fault of a government conspiracy. It is because people no longer care, or to be less polite, because they have seen through the scam of religion and have concluded that after fifteen hundred years of failing to inspire the ideal society, Christianity has no credibility left.

One cannot say the author is dishonest, the way so many of his more enthusiastic American compatriots are. We note with approval that he denounces “pray away the gay” abuse (64) and recognizes that religion has been behind an enormous amount of evil as well as a considerable amount of good (41). What he fails to realize is that this ambiguity is why it is slowly dissolving. He spends much time and energy beating the dead horse of “Christianity is evil,” not realizing that in most cases, it is not even that in the present day world. It doesn’t have the energy to be evil. It is a phantom, a ghost, nothing definite at all. When we call a person a Christian, about all we can conclude with regard to them is that they think Jesus was kind of important. Everything else is mutable. And the supposed supreme authority of God or Jesus or Heaven is not at all evident in the modern world. It was twenty-five hundred years ago that Confucius observed that Heaven did not speak, and proceeded to work out social truths with his own mind and judgment. But Christians still haven’t come to that basic realization.

Sometimes his outrage leads him to the edge of unintentional humor. “Religious schools will be forced to justify to government agencies why certain facility and staff positions require religious adherence; for example, what is ‘Baptist’ about teaching math or what is ‘Jewish” about being an admissions officer” (46). Well, what is “Baptist” about teaching math? An admissions officer to a specialized school might arguably require some attachment to the specialty, that is clear, but math is math. He just wants to be able to discriminate against people outside his “sacred” group for reasons that are presently, and for very good reasons, illegal. His religious ambience is so delicate that it will wither at the slightest touch from the cold air of the real world.

What is particular about religious liberty that is not covered by freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and freedom of personal action (that does not violate the rights of others) and association? Nothing. He cannot shake himself free of the idea that religion is special, is sacred. It isn’t. It’s just another form of thought and the actions inspired by that thought. He rejects, as usual through a third person who does not argue the case, freedom from religion. This person misdefines it as well; it is not “excluding religion and religious voices” from the public square (how could it be without stripping them completely of their freedom of thought and expression?) but denying them an authoritative power (112). They are free to talk and organize, but if they talk nonsense they will be laughed at, and if they organize for illegal activities, they will be held responsible. That’s all there is to it.

The book ends in a golden glow from another strategy (there is a weird fascination with old names among Christian apologists); Benedict isn’t good enough for him so he produces a “Thessalonian strategy,” another dead rabbit from a broken hat: “the subversive project of the church to create a society within a society, resisting secular crusades against people of faith and establishing a cathedral of civilization within the existing edifices of public life” (125). In other words, let’s do something grand and successful! So far so good, but as it stands, it’s no more than another Underpants Gnome fantasy scheme with lots of hope but no real content. “We turn the world upside down by constituting ourselves as an alternative community of freedom and love” (128). Will someone please restrain him before he starts to sing “Age of Aquarius”? Ah, forget it. His god is too tired and old for that.

There is also apologetics. The less said about these the better; they are the sort of apologetics that require apologies. His apologetics had no other topic than refuting the general and shallow “Religion is Bad.” He was not only shooting fish in a barrel, there was only one fish in the barrel. And he still manages to miss most of the time.

The book, in short, is an incoherent and disconnected failure. But let us be grateful for small mercies. It was a relatively polite failure. The author didn’t send everyone to Hell even once. For that, he deserves his two stars.

[George P. · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof … .”

With these words, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution enshrines religious freedom as a hallmark of the American experiment. Government will neither impose religion on unwilling unbelievers nor oppose the religion of sincere believers. Adherents of any religion or none at all can thus meet as equals in the public square to decide matters of common concern.

(I have cited the language of the First Amendment because I am writing for American readers, but the logic underlying that amendment finds expression in other legal sources too, such as Article 18 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights.)

Unfortunately, religious freedom has become controversial in contemporary society. This is largely, though not exclusively, because of conflicts between traditional religious beliefs and practices on the one hand and LGBT rights on the other. If one side wins, it is commonly thought, the other necessarily loses.

Michael F. Bird challenges this zero-sum thinking in Religious Freedom in a Secular Age. He is academic dean and lecturer in New Testament at Ridley College, an evangelical Anglican seminary in Melbourne, Australia. As a Christian, he affirms traditional, biblical teaching on marriage and sexual morality. As an Australian, he offers an international perspective on U.S. religious freedom conflicts.

Bird’s thesis is that Christians in increasingly post-Christian societies such as the U.S., Australia, and Canada should practice “confident pluralism.” This means that “people have the right to be different, to think differently, to live differently, to worship differently, without fear of reprisal.” The right to be different applies both to traditional religious communities and LGBT persons.

Confident pluralism contrasts with what Bird calls “civil religion” on the Right and “civic totalism” on the Left. 

Civil religion or “Christian nationalism” is “a syncretistic fusion between Christianity and nationalism.” It roots religious freedom in “the electoral success of a particular political bodyguard who promises to protect and privilege one particular religious constituency in exchange for their support.” It reduces religious freedom from a broadly shared value to a narrowly partisan agenda. 

By contrast, confident pluralism “bases religious freedom on civic virtues of tolerance, the fair management of differences within equality, and the ability of diverse groups to contribute to the public good.”

Civic totalism, which Bird also calls “progressive authoritarianism,” means that “the state is a narrowly sectarian ideologue driven to enforce its dogmas on all persons and punish the blasphemies of dissenters.” It can express itself as a “militant secularization” that sees religion as an obstacle to sexual liberation which needs to be overcome. At worst, it puts governmental power behind “freedom from religion.” At best, it reduces “freedom of religion” to “freedom of worship.”

By contrast, “confident pluralism does not advocate an expansive government in order to effect a top-down imposition of its values and to compel a convergence of public and private realms to manufacture an allegedly utopian society.”

In short, confident pluralism prioritizes the coexistence of different people and their collaboration on issues of common concern. This does not erase all tensions between religious freedom claims and LGBT rights claims, but it does require diverse citizens to think in win-win rather than zero-sum terms.

For Christians to support confident pluralism successfully, they must do three things: 

First, they must advocate “benign secularism.” Bird’s positive use of secularism may confuse American evangelical readers, for whom the word denotes atheism or naturalism. According to Bird, however, secularism properly understood is a political settlement that arose in the aftermath of Europe’s religious wars in the 16th and 17th centuries. 

“Secularism, in this benign sense, is not against religion, but about common spaces that are neutral, nonsectarian, and free of religious affiliation.” The First Amendment, which prohibits government from both imposing religion on unbelievers and opposing the religion of believers, is a premier example of benign secularism.

Second, they must defend religious freedom. “Religious freedom is vital because without it we cannot have a free, tolerant, inclusive, participatory, and multicultural democracy,” Bird writes. “Thus, the conflict over religious liberty is ultimately a battle of monocultural values versus multicultural ones.”

These two sentences illustrate how confident pluralism incorporates core political interests of both the Right and the Left. The Right prizes liberty and the Left diversity. Bird demonstrates that you cannot have one without the other.

Third, Christian advocates of confident pluralism must practice apologetics. “Classical apologetics” typically deals with arguments in favor of the rationality of Christian belief. What Bird has in mind is “cultural apologetics,” that is, “an account of how and why religion is good for the world.”

Militant secularists such as Christopher Hitchens have argued that “religion poisons everything.” Bird does not deny that religious people, including Christians, have done awful things in history. Think of Christendom’s medieval crusades, for example, or white Southern Christian defenses of slavery in the nineteenth century.

What Bird disputes is that such abuses exhaust the meaning of religion. Religion, he argues, “assigns significance and purpose to human life,” “provides a stable sense of identity” and “a basis for moral reasoning, that is, ethics.” It uses “rituals to invest divine meaning into the ordinary events of human life,” and it is “one of the best tools for community.” Finally, it provides “a bastion for hope,” not only in the life to come but also in this life. [Emphasis in the original throughout.]

A Christian cultural apologetic humbly acknowledges Christendom’s moral failings even as it makes a robust case for Christianity’s contributions to society. “Ultimately religious freedom will flourish in those places where religion is a primary cause of human flourishing,” Bird writes. Christians should do more than say that religion promotes wellbeing, in other words; they must show it.

As is typical in a book covering a topic as complex as religious freedom, readers will not agree with every point Bird makes. American evangelical Christians may dispute Bird’s critique of the Religious Right, for example. They may also get hung up on his positive use of words such as secularism, pluralism, and diversity, which are flashpoints in America’s culture wars.

Nonetheless, I recommend Religious Freedom in a Secular Age to believers concerned about the state of religious freedom in the U.S. As an Australian evangelical, Bird offers American Christians a friendly critique of our blind spots. Whether or not we agree with his case for confident pluralism, it is worthy of consideration, especially in our increasingly post-Christian cultural environment.

Book Reviewed

Michael F. Bird, Religious Freedom in a Secular Age: A Christian Case for Liberty, Equality, and Secular Government (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Reflective, 2022).

P.S. if you liked my review, please click “Helpful” on my Amazon review page.

[Bob · Rating 4 out of 5]

Summary: Distinguishes types of secularism, opposes dismantling religious freedom, and for a new apologetic.

Religious Freedom. It is enshrined as one of the “first freedoms” of the First Amendment of the U.S., Constitution. Yet in recent years, both in courts and the public square, it has been a source of contention. From the left, the conflict between sincerely held belief and an all-pervasive interpretation of non-discrimination has led to efforts to weaken and dismantle this freedom. The political right in turn has weaponized political freedom, using it to galvanize political support from a segment of religious voters. And these polarities exist in many national contexts, including the author of this work’s home country of Australia.

Michael F. Bird seeks to do several things in this work. First, he argues that secularism, per se, is not the bogeyman. Rather, he argues that secularism properly understood creates a space for people of all faiths and none to engage one another from a position of safety in civil society. It means no one religion obtains political power and that persuasion rather than power is the way beliefs are promoted. The problematic form of secularism is militant secularism or secularization. This is where religion loses its social significance or is actively marginalized as dangerous. Militant secularism has risen as a critique of religious violence as well as a source anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination.

This brings Bird to his second aim, which is to address the arguments against religious liberty. Since in many countries, the opposition has come from LGBTQ+ efforts to assert rights, Bird focuses his treatment here. He discusses the efforts to balance LGBTQ+ rights and religious conscience. On one hand he argues that Christians doing business in the world ought to serve those with whom they disagree and that civil protections of LGBTQ+ rights are good. At the same time he, argues for protecting the rights of churches and Christian organizations to operate according to their own beliefs. Where each side respects liberties rather than seeking total wins, compromises protecting the rights and safety of both groups are possible.

Bird rejects both the weaponizing of religious liberty in the Christian nationalism some on the right embrace and progressive authoritarianism from the left. Instead, he upholds John Inazu’s idea of confident pluralism. This means refusing to use coercive power against either different identity groups or against religious groups. Finally, he argues that upholding genuine religious freedom, which is more than freedom of worship, is the best way to protect a diverse, multicultural society.

Thirdly, Bird outlines his ideas of what it means to be a Christian in a post-Christian, secular society. He calls this “the Thessalonian strategy.” First, he encourages a focus on “mere Christianity.” Second, he urges affirming religious liberty for all. This includes the making of friends with those of different faiths or no faith. Third, he believes Christians need to be known for their love, and for being counterculturally “weird.” This includes drawing our leadership from the cultural margins. Fourth, he argues for seeing our work as a form of worship and seeking to influence all sectors of society. By these “tactics” he believes Christians will, like the Thessalonians, “turn the world upside down” and make the most of our freedom.

Bird concludes by proposing that this is a “grand age of apologetics.” He argues that all religions, and not just Christian faith, offer significance, identity, a basis for moral reasoning, ritual, community, and hope. Religious freedom protects those contributions to society. And the Christian apologist has the opportunity to root these values in the story of a God who is there, is good, and through his Son, died and rose for our redemption.

I appreciate the balances Bird strike throughout. He recognizes that rights aren’t absolute but are worked out in the mix of competing groups. He affirms the value of secularism. It creates a space of safety for diverse groups. And I think a strength of his approach is his focus on persuasion rather than power. I can’t help but wonder if the resort to politics reflects a loss of confidence in the gospel. Bird reminds us we have something more powerful than partisan allegiance. We have the risen Lord.

[David Sarkies · Rating 2 out of 5]

Complaining of Persecution
23 October 2024

Ok, while I don’t actually know the author of this book, I do know that he teaches at the bible college in which my church meets so I decided to give it a go. Sadly, much of the book seems to rant and rave against militant secularism (which is probably more militant Atheism than anything else) and while it touches on the extremes at which some Christian sects tend to go, he seems to be oblivious to the fact that they tend to be the ones that scream the loudest, and also seem to be the ones that drive people away from Christianity.

Okay, I’ll give him credit for not writing a book that is crying about Christians being silenced while Muslims and such are being given free reign. In fact his writing does actually show how much Christians have advanced in the past ten years in that he is accepting of people’s lifestyle choices and he isn’t Muslim bashing either. However, he has fallen into the tired old trope that extreme secular governments are much more genocidal than religious governments while ignoring the fact that colonialism, which occurred with the blessings of the church, was responsible for the destruction of whole civilisations. One nation under god was built on the backs of slaves and the wiping out of whole nations of indigenous peoples – so no Christian can’t claim that their system doesn’t have blood on their hands, or accuse the communist states of committing genocide (without actually doing proper research and not calling it rewriting history if it doesn’t agree with your position – Stalin I agree was retributive, however, famines can, and do, result from failed economic policy).

Okay, I do appreciate where he is coming from, in that our system of government means that we should be able to freely practice our faith and that we should be free not to have any religion whatsoever. In fact we should be free to have a society where faithful Muslims, Christians, Buddhists and the like are able to live side by side, and even share meals together. Like, it was not long ago when churches were teaching about how we shouldn’t be letting them into the country, and suddenly changed their tune when Muslims decided that maybe Christianity was actually more appealing (and vice versa). However, when the words orphanage and Catholicism are mentioned in the same sentence I have to say that a shiver really goes up my spine.

The issue in my mind is not so much secularism, it is that crimes that have been committed by the church are being addressed, but they are going too far in the opposite direction. Like, I see his point with the racial discrimination act where he says that having the word ‘offend’ in it, that is making it an offence to offend people probably goes too far. Then again, there have been so many times where I have had to literally suck it up but I’m not allowed to offend others – it seriously has to work both ways – if I can’t offend you then you can’t offend me.

But, as I have mentioned, it is the extremes that are the problems, and he doesn’t do all that much to address the extremes of Christianity – and they are there. Like, if you look at the policy platform of Family First, you will notice that most of it involves bashing the LGBT community, bulldozing farmland to build single-family homes, gutting divorce and abortion laws (and spreading misinformation while they are at it), giving employers the power to screw over their employees, and tacking some social policies on the end (oh, and forcing all drug users into treatment facilities). Yet, ironically, for a Christian party, there is no mention on their policy platform about bring honesty and integrity into government and getting money out.

Yeah, these lot are pretty extreme, and I remember a time when they claimed that the problem with Islam is that it is really easy to radicalise people, but the more I look at the way Christians behave the more I realise that Christianity is just as bad. Like, the reason that I still consider myself a Christian is that I don’t actually have any issues with Jesus Christ – however I do have quite a few issues with Christians. The problem I have with books like this is the same problem I have with Christians – they spend too much time telling others what to do and little to no time cleaning up their own mess.

[Alan Rogers · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a Baptist, I have a keen interest in religious liberty, especially as it relates to the American context. Though Michael Bird is neither American not Baptist (being an Australian Anglican), he has produced one of the best defenses of religious liberty I have ever read. Bird describes a modern Western society in which Christianity is facing danger on two fronts : being pushed out of the public square by militant secularization, or being corrupted by Christian Nationalism into merely a tool of political warfare. Bird demonstrates how the secularist approach actually undermines the very “toleration” they claim to be seeking, first because Western ideas about toleration flow from a Christian understanding concerning the inherent dignity of each individual, and second, because the attempt to drive religion from the public square inevitably breeds totalitarian tendencies in the state. Conversely, any government attempt to give Christianity a leg up over other voices is a double-edged sword which carries the risk of being turned against Christianity in the future.

Against these tendencies, Bird argues that Christians should champion religious liberty for all voices, including non-Christian ones, while expressing confidence that the Christian message can thrive on a level playing field. He also calls for Christians to exercise what he calls the “Thessalonian Strategy”, in which Christians from differing denominations rally around core principles in order to face the common enemy of secularization, pursue religious freedom for all, rely on the persuasive power of love over political machinations, and set out to demonstrate the truth of the gospel for our neighbors by choosing to live under the lordship of Christ as opposed to cultural whims.

While I might disagree with Bird on some of the finer points of his proposal, overall I think he has done a great service to the church by calling us to step back from politics and the culture wars in order to consider the bigger picture. He has correctly diagnosed the challenges facing the Christian movement in this current moment, and pointed a way forward that allows the church to be faithful to its calling.

[Thomas Black · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was helpful in redeeming the cause for Christian advocacy for true, pluralistic secularism (c.f. debate on Christian nationalism in US etc). It was easy to read, filled with many anecdotes, and is littered with Birds sarcasm and humour that he is known for.

However, being a renown theologian and one that I respect, I did expect a more thorough exploration of the philosophical foundation of his thesis. It read more like a wide-ranging exploration of Birds perspectives and opinions on how Christianity should engage with culture and politics. At times it did feel a lot like 'third-way Christianity', feeling not afraid to criticise the right, especially Trumpism.

Ultimately he is advocating for the classical liberalism model but with more active support from Christians, based on Christian reasoning.

3.5/5

Some interesting quotes below.

"Religion will not go away even in a post religious age, people will merely translate their religious energies into political projects."

"Christian sponsored cultural pluralism [is where] all religions are free and respected within a diverse culture under a secular government… we love our neighbours by allowing them to be other than us"

"The purpose of law is, at one level, to reflect the values and will of the majority as manifested in our legislatures. However, the purpose of a constitution is to protect minorities from the tyranny of the [majority] even when they possess law and numbers on their side"

"To preserve state secularity, the government, it's bureaucracy, and the judiciary must not only be neutral in its disposition towards religion, but it must equally affirm its own incompetence to adjudicate matters of religion."

"[Secularism] must be especially checked when it pretends not to be a worldview, but nonetheless seeks to impose its ideologies via the organs of the state"

"[Militant] Secularisation cultivates is own quasi-religious atmosphere…. the irony is that the more militant the secularisation, the more zealously religious the secularising rituals and ideals seem to become."

[Diane · Rating 4 out of 5]

Written by a New Testament scholar based in Australia, this book looks at religious freedom, and seeks to defend it from attacks from both the right and the left. He begins by describing religious freedom and explaining why it is important. This is well-written, but mostly echoes material that is available elsewhere. Then, he writes about practical ways for Christians (and other religious people) to defend their faith when it is attacked, while also respecting the rights of people who disagree (either practitioners of other religions or atheists). This is the best part of the book. While I think the first part of the book is well argued, I wish he would have developed some of the ideas more. The book is fairly short (less than 200 pages), so he definitely could have lengthened it somewhat and added more material. He talks about the need for compromise between traditional religious believers and members of the LGBTQI community, but he never explains what he thinks those compromises should entail, or how they should be agreed upon. He also doesn't give much advice as to how religiously-based institutions (schools, hospitals, non-profits, etc) that are public facing should act, and whether they should have different rules for their clients as opposed to their church members. I thought this is particularly important in the case of religiously affiliated schools, which must teach sufficient secular subjects in order to maintain their accreditation. He expresses some concern about this, but never really explains what guidelines should exist for religious schools to make sure they are educating students appropriately. Overall, this book is a great introduction to a complicated subject, and the author does a good job of considering the questions in light of the global Church.

[Benjamin Razey · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bird’s Religious Freedom in a Secular Age is a fantastic book defending secularism. He highlights the growth in militant secularism in the West, based on three areas of disgust (terrorism, church sex-abuse scandals and religious opposition to LGBTQI+ rights), arguing that “instead of a benign brand of secularism… now we are being fed a narrative that says religion is part of the problem.” Bird emphasises the need for Christians to love and care for those who have been hurt because of these areas, urging Christians to “fight for a Christian pluralism in which we love our neighbours by allowing them to be other than us.” Bird expands upon this proposition by affirming a healthy alternative to both militant secularism and a theocratic society, namely “confident pluralism,” wherein differing opinions are encouraged, respected and appreciated in public discourse, and where the positivity of religion is affirmed, rather than the stifling of religion being encouraged.

Overall Bird’s book is well worth a read for Christians seeking to navigate the complexity of living in a society growing in its militant secularism and opposition to religion. It is also valuable for those who may affirm the removal of religion, as it highlights a number of helpful aspects of confident pluralism that are of benefit to the modern West, and portrays Christianity in a light that ought to be attractive to even the furthest outsider. I would strongly recommend this book for any and all who are thinking about the place of religion in contemporary society.

[Anna Catherman · Rating 3 out of 5]

An eye-opening read, and one I was a bit frustrated by but don't regret giving a listen. Bird attempts to present a case for Christians to advocate for a secular public square with ample religious freedom, and does so with some success. In my opinion, though, much of his case is shallow, with not enough Scriptural or historical evidence. Additionally, I don't think he adequately explored what Christians' involvement in the government should be. He focuses perhaps just a bit too much on critiquing the Religious Right rather than offering alternatives; he doesn't praise the Left, either. That being said, there were moments when I felt convicted by this book.
"We must be humbly confident, as dark as our Western political moment may seem, that Jesus will return someday to implement a 'one world government' in which we will have unrestricted freedom to worship him. We are confident, because we know our future involves unrestricted religious freedom. But we are humble because it will be Jesus, rather than us, who gains the final victory."

[Claude Blackwell · Rating 5 out of 5]

Be Ready in Season & Out of Season…THIS IS WELL WORTH YOUR TIME!!!

“I solemnly call on you in the presence of God and Christ Jesus, who is going to judge those who are living and those who are dead. I do this because Christ Jesus will come to rule ⌞the world⌟. Be ready to spread the word whether or not the time is right. Point out errors, warn people, and encourage them. Be very patient when you teach.”
‭‭2 Timothy‬ ‭4‬:‭1‬-‭2‬ ‭GW‬‬

Dr. Bird’s timely and poignant examination of two of the prominent worldviews that are warring against biblical Christianity in western governance are well explained. He gives a fair and biased view of both and what their dangers are to religious freedom.

The timeline of his writings are perhaps a little heavy on the civic totalism of the extreme left missing the extremism of the current US Christian nationalistic leaning. Despite this it is very much on point for all believers who find themselves in search of a true Christian apologetic stand for our lives in this world.

[Jacob · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hot start but fizzles. Really interesting and provocative opening 1/3rd or so. Putting secularism in proper context and how religious freedom requires secularism was really eye opening. For me, a lot of the rest of his perspective relies on a notion that religion is under extremely prejudicial threat in society. Particularly in the U.S. with the recent SCOTUS rulings and conservatively skewed electorate process I have a hard time worrying over this point. The strength of the book and sadly the minority of it (IMO) is when taking aim at the weak and false faith of Western "Christians" that has given rise to such a negative public perception of religion in the first place. We need to get our house in order and trust our Lord on Heaven more than gird up for more culture war.

[Jérémie Cascales · Rating 4 out of 5]

Michael Bird writes a good book on religious freedom in a secular society. He provides an Australian and theological perspective upon his own culture, and the western world (France and America in particular). He starts to define the word « secular » through history and present era, discussing around problematic and the problem of secularism without theistic parts.
His second part presents « the Thessalonians way » to see how secular Christianity should be lived to keep the great commands (love God and love people).
Bird touches topic such as LGBTQ+ and Islam. Great book!

[Daniel Pandolph · Rating 2 out of 5]

A surprisingly weak entry into the conversation of Christianity and politics. Reads like a basic entry point to the discussion and rather than any sort of clear analysis. No real great insights here. Poor.

[Joshua Loftin · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thoroughly enjoyed Bird’s analysis of secularism and the various forms of religious freedom in the world. However, I was left desiring more depth and explanation of his strategy for Christian engagement in the public square.

[Радостин Марчев]

Може би най-дбрата книга по темата, която съм чел. А бележките под линия съдържат забележително полезна допълнителна литература.

[Mano Chil · Rating 4 out of 5]

I like that Michael isn't sheepish.

[Shane Williamson · Rating 4 out of 5]

2023 reads: 39

Rating: 4 stars

Much to be appreciative for here. I always enjoy Bird's frank cantor. His perspective from someone in a vastly "secular" culture is helpfully descriptive. I agree wholeheartedly with his argument that (moderate) secularism is the child of Christianity (and the Enlightenment). His distinction between militant secularism and (one could say, ordinary) secularism was helpful. Bird's overall approach is winsome, but I can't help but think it is marginally short sighted and may only be valid for a couple generations before "Judeo-Christian" ideas fall completely from the way side, after which, arguing for a secularism borne out of Christianity will be somewhat superfluous. Again and again I'm reminded of James K. A. Smith's proposal that the church begin doing political theology from a Gospel- and not a natural-law/creation-base, as the latter will no longer be a shared encyclopedia in time. For now though, Bird offers much wisdom.