A new temple and the end of secularism
This week a new temple opened in India. The Ram Temple is built on a sacred site where a mosque stood for 500 years, recently dismantled by the Indian government. The site is believed to be the birthplace of Lord Ram (aka Vishnu). This sounds like a dispute between Islam and Hinduism, but is better understood as the undoing of secularism.
India was a predominantly Buddhist region from the 400s onwards. Islam arrived in the 700s, and the English colonised India in the 1700s. At the time of independence in 1947, Indian had Hindus (84%), Muslims (10%), Christians (2.3%), Sihks (1.8%) – and no atheists to speak of.
Colonialism is presently a dirty word, but the English brought advancements in education, medicine, law and order, governance, and secularism to India. From the Christian tradition came the idea that the state could govern with justice for all people, without favouring one religion. This is secularism – separating the state from religious institutions. India was politically secular, and deeply religious.
Of recent, we in the West imagine secularism and atheist are inseparable – as if secularism is the product of atheism. Not so – secularism comes from Jesus when he says render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.
The Indian Prime Minister (Modi) and State have intervened in domestic issues with a biased religious agenda. To be Indian is to be Hindu. Erdogan is doing the same in Turkey, rededicating the Hagia Sophia as a mosque. Putin is making the Russian State more Orthodox, The Military Junta are making Myanmar more Buddhist, and Trump is pitching to Evangelical conservatives.
What does all of this mean? Why is this happening? There are two insights to grasp. What is passing is secularism. The notion that justice is for everyone (not just the majority religion) and that secular states exist to care for all citizens is running out of momentum.
Secularism is an organising principle, not a culture-wide narrative. Secularism must be bolted onto something else. Historically, there have only been two options – Christianity, and Atheism.
Like secularism, Atheism is also dying, so argues Brierley in The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God. This is the second idea to grasp. To use Hegel’s categories, it appears Atheism was an antithesis, not a thesis in and of itself. It was a counter-narrative designed to unhinge the self from the claims of God, rather than a positive narrative that offers hope, meaning and purpose.
Put these two together, and secular atheism is dying a double death. Atheism cannot stand alone as a compelling worldview, let alone provide the foundations to underwrite the secular state.
Not all have abandoned the project. Western Individual expressivism (known as ‘woke’ by its detractors) is an attempt to bring forward secularism and construct an optimistic, life-giving, culture-sustaining worldview. With Brierley and others, I suspect the attempts are faltering. With Ayaan Hirsi Ali, I believe the results are incapable of countering the rival evils of militant Islam and Totalitarian Russia and China.
If secularism and individualism are not a tenable solution, what is? In its place is (re-)emerging religious nationalism. Cultures need an over-arching story that binds us together (and against them). Given that secular atheism lacks such a compelling story, the likes of Modi, Putin, Erdogan (and Netanyahu, Trump, Hamas, Iran, Hungary, Fiji – the list could go on) are using the story-telling capacity of religion to gather the faithful around a cause. Seasons of instability give rise to tribalism and nationalism. Religion becomes the gathering point, the banner under which to gather.
Jesus does not fit this mould. Christians, when they follow Jesus, are known for their love, including love for enemies. Everyone is made in God’s image, including people from other tribes, tongues and religions.
Politically speaking, this is a challenging moment for Christians. In my view, we ought to be advocating for a secularism that is built on the (Christian, so Tom Holland demonstrates) values of justice, equality, compassion, and freedom for all. But this does not mean advocating for a return to Christendom, and the widespread legislation of Christian values and morals for all.
If we are not contenting for a return to Christendom (or Christian nationalism), nor ought we abandon the public sphere. How to be a (non-privileged) voice for (a Christian view of) charity and justice, without being seen to desire privilege and a return to Christendom – that is the new trail to blaze.