A Secular Faith: Why Christianity Favors the Separation of Church and State

by D.G. Hart

Darryl Hart, the highly regarded historian of religion, contends that appeals to Christianity for social and political well-being fundamentally misconstrue the meaning of the Christian religion. His book weaves together historical narratives of American Protestantism's influence on the nation's politics, and commentary on recent writing about religion and public life, with expositions of Christian teaching. The tapestry that emerges is a compelling faith-based argument for keeping Christianity out of politics.

Genres: Theology, Nonfiction, Church History, Religion, Politics

288 pages, Hardcover

First published September 1, 2006

About the author

Darryl G. Hart (Ph.D., Johns Hopkins University) directs the honors programs and faculty development at the Intercollegiate Studies Institute and serves Westminster Seminary California as adjunct professor of church history. He has written or edited more than fifteen books, including Defending the Faith, a biography of J. Gresham Machen. He is coeditor of the American Reformed Biographies series.

Reviews

[Scarlett Sims · Rating 3 out of 5]

Well, I'm giving it three stars because some parts were fairly dry and a bit hard to read. However, I think everyone should read this book, especially every Christian. Hart's main thesis is that getting Christianity involved in politics is detrimental to Christians. I think this is an incredibly important point for the church to at least consider. I'm not going to use this as an opportunity for a political rant, but I will say that thinking about why the government isn't the proper forum for practicing faith would, I think, be a useful exercise for politicians who claim a religious bent.

[Craig French · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book is an extended, and laborious (for the reader), discourse that asserts Christians ought to live “double lives”. If you are looking for a well-researched book attempting to bolster a “2-Kingdom” view similar to the likes of Michael Horton, R. Scott Clark, and David Van Drunen; you will get a book articulating the paradigm with a transparency the aforementioned lack as Hart attempts to baptize bifurcated Christian living as if it were obedience. For this transparency, Hart is to be commended.

For Hart, Christian faith must be relegated to the private life and should not be “worn on the sleeve”. Any breakdown of the privatized faith silo may result in confusion of the two kingdoms (at best), or actual harm to others (at worst, and more likely). Outside of formal worship settings and your home-made bunker, faith is dangerous. It’s in these settings that damage control can be used most effectively.

As Hart reasons: The love of God, tenacity about worship, defensiveness about sacred rites, aversion to false religion - all are parts of genuine faith that make it impractical if not damaging for public life. (pg 13)

Throughout the pages of the book, Hart crafts an American history where faith has regularly “intruded” upon the secular realm and argues that we should, instead of integrating faith throughout our lives, hyphenate our faith. So we need not be concerned about public policy. On its face, that sounds not terribly wrong. We don’t want the Church writing policies, do we? Of course, talking about public policy is not limited to paving roads: what about infanticide? Hart never takes the time to ponder what a Christian must do when the “secular” intrudes upon the “sacred”.

Hart fails to distinguish Church from faithful Christian witness as well. Piety is typically equated to external forms of worship in the Lord’s Day setting. Completely absent is the notion of faithful witness in relationship to “two kingdoms.” John the Baptist addressed Herod’s unlawful marriage (by Jewish standards). One ponders why an obvious New Testament scenario like this was absent from the book. Did John the Baptist die needlessly? He was a preacher of the kingdom, so one would expect that the man who paved the way for Jesus’ ministry would have been included. Unfortunately, the preacher of the kingdom didn’t meet Hart’s primary concern.

The logic Hart employs is strained. On the one hand, we don’t live in a theocracy, and we should not try to impose one. I’m not sure how many Evangelicals are actually trying to do this. Who is the target these arrows are aimed at? There’s no clear target, so the reader is left wondering if Hart sleeps with a flashlight worried the bogeyman is lurking beneath his bed. As a result, Hart envisions a secular kingdom based on his understanding of particular passages of Scripture to keep the theocratic bogeyman at bay. Ironically, by basing his contrivances on Scripture, he unwittingly affirms a strange form of theocracy. A hyphenated one.

In conclusion:
I recommend the book to readers desiring to see the errors of “radical” two kingdom views. Hart fails to provide citations in the book, although he offers a word on the sources he used at the end. The book reads like a reconstructionist history loaded with anachronism. Perhaps including citations would have curbed this strong tendency. The result is helpful, however, since it tends to demonstrate that Hart’s two kingdoms view is a private one where he attempts to reconstruct history to agree with him while imposing it on the rest of us. To this end, we are thankful for the transparency, but also ask that Hart keep his hyphenated theocracy to himself.

[John Knox · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good read. It is historical by nature, as opposed to exegetical, which is to be expected from Hart.

Hart shows how various groups have wrestled with issues of church and state from within the American experiment. While he demonstrates that many of these examples are in violation of the first amendment, his larger point is that they are a violation of the fundamental nature, the otherworldliness, of the Christian faith. He concludes that Christians should live hyphenated lives characterized by having one foot in the now (or our lives as citizens in earthly kingdoms) and the other in the not yet (or the eschatological life of the church awaiting the consummnation). Whether or not you agree with his conclusions, the book will provoke you to think and wrestle with these issues.

My biggest complaint is the editing style chosen. There are no footnotes or endnotes included in this book which is very frustrating. The note on sources gives books for further reading, but having no references was rather annoying.

[Clifton Rankin · Rating 4 out of 5]

As one who has always appreciated Darryl Hart’s writing (especially his works with John Muether), and as one who researched the disestablishment of religion in the early United States for a Masters in History class, I was drawn to Hart’s 2006 work, “A Secular Faith: Why Christianity Favors the Separation of Church and State.” Starting with John Winthrop’s “City on a Hill” sermon, and working his way through our nation’s history, he describes the attempt of Americans to “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is God’s.” It is a bit more challenging to read than his other books, but his nuanced look at the differences between the “City of God,” and the “City of Man” makes the attempt of the reader worthwhile.

[Daniel Wells · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a fun, informative read. Hart is a good writer who makes history jump off the page.

While I am sympathetic to the practical and ecclesial implications of Hart's thesis, he never gives any exegetical basis for the absolute separation of religion and state. Nor does he show how a 'purely secular (I.e. Non-ideological) state is possible. I also think he gets Constitutional interpretation wrong at points.

Still, it's a good read.

[Mark Lickliter · Rating 2 out of 5]

I need to write a review of this. There is a lot to say about it.

[Maxwell Kendall · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating read.

[Jordan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Darryl Hart's self-stated goal in this book is to "complicate contemporary understandings of the relationship between Christianity and liberal democracy in the United States," an understanding that sees secularism as evil and Christianity not only as telling us what to believe concerning God and God's requirements for man, but as a blueprint for government and societal improvement. Many Christians today are distressed that "under God" may be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, "In God We Trust" from our currency, or the Ten Commandments from courthouses nationwide. There are Christian legal groups fighting to keep these tokens of the Christian faith in public places. But does defending such things have anything to do with Christianity? What about prayer in public schools or government-funded faith-based charities. These entanglements of church and state may not only raise good questions, but may in fact do damage to Christian religion by obscuring or conflating its real message and means. I believe it does. "Because Christianity does not require a certain form of government, a specific kind of cultural expression, or a distinct way of arranging society," says Hart, "its adherents may legitimately live" what he calls "hyphenated lives that are secular and Christian." The church and the civil magistrate have two distinct jobs to do, and while in a democracy, the Christian may be involved in both, their sphere's of authority should not generally overlap. According to Hart, it is Christianity itself that argues for this separation.

[Paul · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really didn't like Hart's writing style. Maybe it was because I had a head cold while reading this book. I don't know, but that's my main complaint.

Hart tries to show that there should be a separation between church and state, or private faith and public politics. This doesn’t mean we should withdraw, but we should have a "secular faith." Here, 'secular' means 'temporary or passing.' Hart claims this is precisely the view Christians should take since they are "hyphenated." They live between two worlds, citizens of two kingdoms - one temporary and passing, the other eternal.

Hart does a god job showing that the various mixtures of religion (or religious faith) and politics have usually had disastrous results. If they don't imply a compulsion to be Christian, then they dumb down the faith so much as to make it anti-Christian.

Hart wants the church to do it's job - preach the word and deliver sacraments. He doesn't want it to form various cell groups and send out its members to be "Christian" butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers.

He doesn't take on the more sophisticated approaches to what he would call a "mixing" in views like theonomy, or even Poythress' Shadow of Christ stuff.

I am becoming more and more interested in political theology, and so that's why I read this book. But if you're interested in the religious history of America, this book may interest you. Though there might be better written ones, like from Noll or Nichols, e.g.,

[Ian · Rating 3 out of 5]

Definitely the book to read on this topic, as I have yet to see anyone make such a sustained effort at making the argument that, for the sake of Christianity, religion and politics must be kept separate. Some of the history here is useful, though it is often quite dull, and some of the argumentation is interesting and provocative, but Hart just never seems to deal with the doctrine of Christ's lordship. He mentions it, to be sure, but he never comes down to brass tacks enough to answer the question: is Christ Lord of our civil government? If He is, why shouldn't the magistrate confess that, and serve Him in fear?

[Steve · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book maybe a little surprising since it's from the perspective of a theologically conservative Presbyterian with politically conservative leanings. As a religious historian, he guides us through the historical narratives of American church follies concerning the unholy mixing of church and politics.

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting, and well written, but thoroughly confused.

[Patrick]

A good book on why Christianity is better when church and state are separate. I only wish more Christians fully embraced this.

[Dane · Rating 3 out of 5]

Great historical surveys included in this book, but I don't quite agree with Hart's ends.

[W. Littlejohn · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very odd book. Solid history in the service of bizarre theology.

Full review to follow soon.

[Dan Cotter · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting and well-researched read on this topic.

[Mark Nenadov]

A mixed bag. An engaging read for those interested by the relation of Christ to culture and politics in particular. It is likely to infuriate those who are skeptical of or nuanced in their adherence to 2 kingdoms theology. Hart is an engaging historical writer but this work lacks some basic exegesis of relevant texts and lacks discussion of practical consequences.