The Naked Public Square   Richard John Neuhas (Eerdmans, 1984)

I forget who first used the comedic phrase “It’s deja vu all over again” but it seems like the themes and context of this 1980s classic about religious faith in public life are being experienced all over again. For those who aren’t old enough to remember, or those of us who have tried to forget, the 1980s saw a huge and boisterous activation of what came to be known as the religious right; Jerry Falwell was crusading against vice through his political movement called The Moral Majority. Sojourners and others insisted that Jesus was not necessarily a Reagan republican and offered a strong critique of accommodating Christ to the conservative political agenda. And then the serious-push-back began as secularists (and even some liberal Protestants and Jews) insisted that people of faith, especially evangelicals, ought not to allow their faith to inform their understanding of citizenship and public policy.  Even intellectuals who should have known better blithely cited Jefferson’s wall of separation between the institutions of church and the state, stating that such wise concerns against a state church and the constitutional prohibition against the “establishment” of religion meant that individual religious believers dare not talk about their faith in the public square. These were often loud and contentious debates, waged on the editorial pages of The New York Times to the local bars and beauty shops. It was said that the arenas of civic conversation, the institutions of local politics, what was increasingly being called “the public square” should be thoroughly secular. Only those who claimed to have no faith were allowed to talk about their motivating ideologies.

Amid this clamor, Richard Neuhas’s book became a clarion call to re-think this unfair bias in favor of the secularists and attempted to adjudicate the tensions that naturally arise when various citizens hold deeply held convictions.  Who gets to say that some convictions—say those of a devout Muslim or a conservative Mormon, for instance—are to be excised from public life? In the most obvious examples of bio-medical ethics and the abortion debates, but even in discussions about welfare reform or warfare, should politicians cite sacred texts?  More mundanely, can local public school children sing Christmas carols or can a local fire hall display a Christmas tree?  There were debates.  There were lawsuits. 

 To keep religious folks and their language and ways of thinking out of the public discourse and institutions does not, Neuhas cogently argued, create a public square that is neutral (or naked) as such an arrangement privileges those who say that religion is forbidden—which is hardly a neutral perspective! No, the attempt to remove any and all religious conviction is itself “self-defeating” since it establishes one particular ideological view.  And so, in The Naked Public Square the late Father Neuhas, made a huge and vital contribution: there is no such thing as a naked public square because even to silence or marginalize those of traditional faith perspectives is to merely establish one (secular) worldview and discriminates against all others.  

The second major contribution of the book was the weight of its case regarding what to do about this vexing matter: how can we legitimately create civic space for any and all citizens, neither disallowing nor favoring any one worldview, religious or secular?  If a “naked” or value-free approach is impossible and we ought not exclusively favor the secularist bias, what sort of political arrangements would invite an authentic and sustainable pluralism? Can we consistently affirm a view that assures justice for all, from the ACLU to the Moral Majority, from the secularist to the religious? Yes, Neuhas insists, we must make room for all voices and we do that with a serious and deeply-held conviction about the importance of principled pluralism. The Naked Public Square remains a historic book, lucid, thoughtful, well-argued, eloquent in many ways. It makes a persuasive case against naïve notions of religious neutrality and assured public intellectuals that making room for all voices and perspectives was not only fair and wise but what the founders and framers of our great land intended.  He did not intend to impose a religious worldview nor was he necessarily aligned with the policies of the new right.  But he did offer a vital critique of the incoherence of a view that in the name of neutrality would rule out of court any but the most secular of citizens and perspectives.  As religion and politics continues to be front and center in our national political discourse, it is a thoughtful and wise classic we need to remember all over again. 

-----

A Public Faith Miroslov Volf (Baker; 2010)

If there is any one theologian writing today that may deserve to be considered a true public intellectual it would be Yale professor, Miroslov Volf. As a follower of Christ and as a thinker, Volf came of age amidst the Serbo-Croatian war and wrote an award winning and much-discussed rumination on those years called Exclusion and Embrace. He has continued to write on topics of interest to many Q readers—a Christian view of work, relating faith to calling and vocation, political justice and the nature of love, interfaith discussions (especially between Christians and Muslims) and several astute and eloquent works on forgiveness. This new book is garnering much praise and it has been highly regarded by some of our wisest Christian thinkers (such as Nicholas Wolterstorff and Richard Mouw.)

In A Public Faith Volf writes passionately about some of the themes raised by Neuhaus, however it is clearly a 21st century book.  It is global, it is attentive to a variety of religions, and is less a response to the hegemony of the secularists but is a reflection on how to be faithful to Christ in a pluralizing world of huge diversity, ideological and religious. Volf wants to be very clear that the Lordship of Christ—a doctrine taken seriously by Christians—has implications for our views of politics, how we live as citizens, and how we relate to neighbors at home and around the world.  Yes, indeed, Christ is our true King.  But, ahhh, how do we work that out in a democratic culture, inspired by Biblical texts that remind us of our commitment to the common good?

Volf is no theocrat and he is not a simple do-gooder who thinks that Christian discipleship merely means to help others, accommodating Biblical truths to a general liberal consensus.  He advocates a public, robust, fully-committed Christian perspective, but he shows how just such a serious theology of public discipleship must include a commitment to honor others, of being patiently merciful to others, of holding forth uniquely Christian positions even as we respect and engage the positions of others. One could say that he has a significant theology of “common grace for the common good.” A Public Faith  in some ways could be considered a version of the Neuhaus book, 25 years and a cultural light year away. We have seen genocide and terrorism, postmodernism and increased hostility to the Christian right, even as the evangelical world has diversified and grown more sophisticated in its public witness.   If Neuhaus' Naked Public Square was the right book for the right time a generation ago, Volf may have written that book for us today. This is the right book for the right time, urgent, clear-headed, insightful and good. We can be grateful for his wide vision, his deep concerns, and his graceful desires to see Christ honored in the public square, in ways that are humble, tolerant and just.

You can order both of these books at Hearts and Minds Books. Mention Q Ideas when you order and receive 20% off.

1. What obstacles do you encounter to living out your faith in public? What opportunities?
2. How ought followers of Jesus approach the public square?

Editor's Note: The image above was taken by Luciti.

Comments

Comments are now closed