i.Rethinking the secular

The classic thesis of secularisation, at least in any straight-forward sense, has been seen to fail. Elaine Graham puts the matter well.

“Within social theory, there is a widespread assumption that science, technology, democracy and individualism – all associated with the Democratic, Industrial and Scientific revolutions of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries – would eventually eclipse religious beliefs and institutions.” (Anglican Identity Report 3.1).

In Western societies, therefore, religion was meant to retreat to the private sphere with its public presence in inevitable decline. Yet even in Europe, where the secularisation thesis appears to have some plausibility, it is not that simple. Grace Davie in Europe: The Exceptional Case (2002) detects a persistent ‘vicarious religion’ in which, while people are content to let others enact a memory of religious activity on their behalf, they reserve the right to call upon that resource if needed, especially in times of crisis and bereavement. Davie thus muses: “Could it be that Europeans are not so much less religious than populations in other parts of the world, but – quite simply – differently so?” (p.19)

So, there appears to be an unpredicted and unexpected reluctance to give up on religion. While church attendance in general is at a record low (at least on a 150 year view), the categories of ‘atheist’, ‘agnostic, or of ‘no religion’ do not seem to resonate as widely as one might expect. If this is bad news for secularisation, it is not yet, however, good news for the churches. In the present context the ideas and traditions of Christianity appear to, “hover within an uncertain realm, neither socially salient nor culturally meaningless” (Guest et al, 2013, p.33)

What then of the university. Is this at least a force for ‘secularisation’? On the basis of their recent quantitative and qualitative study of student Christianity Guest et al (2013) arrive at the following conclusion.

“To be sure, personal faith is not repudiated or scorned in the vast majority of university contexts, but it is taught to know its place within a wider context that is secularised and pluralistic, affirming the autonomy of the individual and the inappropriateness of intruding upon the opinions of others in all matters to do with religion, unless their opinions violate contemporary mores.” ( p.108)

Christian faith survives the university experience, but is likely to lose some of its public confidence.

The term ‘post secular’ has been coined to describe our present context. It is used to identity an uneasy mixture of unexpectedly resistant religious belief and practice (buoyed in part by the migration of populations), and a widespread but largely undefined spirituality, together with secular assumptions about the public space and new forms of aggressive atheism. Unlike secularism’s single narrative of religious decline, the post secular is characterised by multiple stories of the relationship between the religious and the secular that are complex and diverse (c.f. Speers, 2013, p.252f). David Tacey (2004) puts the matter thus: “…we are caught in a difficult moment in history, stuck between secular systems we have outgrown and religious systems we cannot fully embrace” (p.2, cited at Egan, 2007, p.121). The Christian story then is no longer one that many people can inhabit confidently as a source of meaning and orientation.

The post secular context may, however, offer a new opportunity for religious perspectives, albeit suitably chastened, to gain a hearing in the public square. Speers (2013) talks about a ‘New Secular’ understanding and to do so draws attention to Jeffery Stout’s distinction between:

• A secularist position that aims at minimizing the influence of religion in public life for the sake of democracy, and;
• A secular position in which religious beliefs and reasons are welcome, but a speaker must realise that it cannot be taken for granted that one’s interlocutors share the same religious assumptions as oneself (pp.257f).

Those of us who are familiar with a university environment will recognise in this definition of the secular the ethic of hospitality that pertains to academic debate. One can argue for one’s cherished convictions as long as one recognises their status as contestable by others. Chaplains can thus, presumably, argue for the Christian (Anglican) perspective on the same basis. Thus, perhaps, the post secular context affords chaplaincy the opportunity for a public voice without embarrassment provided the claims made give room to the other to critique and rebut. This is surely precisely the kind of environment mission requires: to have one’s voice heard yet without special privileges. It is a setting that would not be unfamiliar to members of the early church.