The Secular City: Secularization and Urbanization in Theological Perspective

by Harvey Cox

This landmark work inspired heated controversy when Macmillan first published it in 1965, often accused of adding fuel to the “God is dead” sentiment of the era. In truth, Harvey Cox—Victor Thomas Professor of Religion at Harvard University—does not proclaim the end of faith but instead reframes the meaning of secularization. He argues that the shift away from traditional religious structures is less a decline than a form of emancipation, freeing human beings to engage with the world in new ways.

Drawing on theology, sociology, and cultural analysis, Cox examines how modern urban life shapes and challenges religious thought, suggesting that the city itself becomes the arena where questions of meaning, morality, and community are tested. Written in a period of immense social upheaval, The Secular City remains a touchstone in debates about the role of religion in contemporary society, recognized both for its provocative claims and its enduring influence on modern theology.

Far from closing the door on God, Cox’s book opens fresh avenues for thinking about faith, freedom, and the responsibilities of living in a rapidly changing world.

Genres: Religion, Theology, Nonfiction, Sociology, Philosophy, Christian, History

255 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1965

About the author

Harvey Gallagher Cox Jr., Ph.D. (History and Philosophy of Religion, Harvard University, 1963; B.D., Yale Divinity School, 1955) was Hollis Professor of Divinity at Harvard, where he had been teaching since 1965, both at HDS and in the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences, until his retirement in 2009.

An American Baptist minister, he was the Protestant chaplain at Temple University and the director of religious activities at Oberlin College; an ecumenical fraternal worker in Berlin; and a professor at Andover Newton Theological School. His research and teaching interests focus on the interaction of religion, culture, and politics. Among the issues he explores are: urbanization, theological developments in world Christianity, Jewish-Christian relations, and current spiritual movements in the global setting. His most recent book is When Jesus Came to Harvard: Making Moral Decisions Today. His Secular City, published in 1965, became an international bestseller with more than 1 million copies sold. It was selected by the University of Marburg as one of the most influential books of Protestant theology in the twentieth century.

Reviews

[Gary · Rating 1 out of 5]

Basic liberal Christian apology - an attempt to recast Christianity in a way that appeals to educated, liberal urbanites. It is, in his words, "verbal byplay in which . . . [he tries] to convince contemporary nontheists [and non-Christians in general] that the differences among men today over the reality of God are merely verbal" (259). Of course, he uses these words to criticize others' theology, not his own.
In essence, he says to the liberal, educated urbanite, "You're right: mankind has outgrown religion. But only as it has been cast in the past. In reality - i.e., in the way I cast it - that is the heart of true religion (read: Christianity). God is trying to get humans to abandon their unhealthy reliance on him and become 'true' humans." In it, "the Gospel" becomes a euphemism for Christianity

To begin with, Cox recognizes that his audience is probably well educated, and even biblically literate. To that end, he must answer one question that plagues contemporary Christianity: how is it that the God we see in both the Old and New Testaments is so radically and concretely involved in human life compared to what we see today? In the Bible we have God parting the Red Sea and raising Jesus from the dead (which of course means nothing other than God raising himself from the dead, according to traditional theology); destroying complete cities with fire and brimstone from heaven and enabling people to walk on water. And yet he is curiously absent in our present reality. No donkeys are talking to anyone; no whales swallowing stubborn televangelists. There are no pillars of fire, no booming voices. What happened to God? Well, the problem, according to Cox, lies in the question itself. God is hidden, and "He cannot be expected to appear when we designate the place and time" (261). Very clever. The problem is that we're basically daring God to exist rather than looking "to the hints God has dropped in the past in order to make out what He is doing today" (254). The Bible, then, is just a collection of "hints" (not divinely inspired as such, and not infallible - a great relief to educated urbanites). In fact, God "does not 'appear' in Jesus; He hides himself in the stable of human history" (258). We just need to figure out where God is working and join him. This includes "standing in a picket line" (256) or, as implied on the back-cover biography of Cox, spending time in jail because for the cause of civil rights. In other words, he's saying, "Rest easy, liberal, educated urbanites. I'm not out to change your ultimate concern. I'm just trying to get you to frame it in a different way."

In other words, he's saying, "We're not trying to convert the world to Christianity, so if that's one of your main obstacles to Christianity, you can go ahead and convert because it's not a legitimate concern." It's liberal Christian apology, and nothing else. "Being Christian is basically being nice to others and helping them occasionally," he seems to be saying. A comfortable, educated middle class liberal perspective. Get involved, but not too involved. You don't need to risk everything to be a Christian, because that removes responsibility from others.

But what about the exclusivist claims of Christianity? No problem, for if "we need the nontheists" then certainly we need others of other religious faiths. It's like trying to convert people without admitting that you want to convert everyone.

In the end, it's a theological version of having your cake and eating it too. The liberal, social activism and the comfort of Christian belief. "They're one and the same!" says Cox. It's sort of like suburban liberation theology.

By necessity, it's squishy theology - long on abstract notions, short on concrete specifics:

We speak of God to secular man by speaking about man, by talking about man as he is seen in the biblical perspective. Secular talk about God occurs only when we are away from the ghetto and out of costume, when we are participants in that political action by which He restores men to each other in mutual concern and responsibility (256).

Now we get a hint as to what this might mean from his picket line comment, but he's careful not to give too many specifics, lest he face the accusation of merely being a "liberal in Christian clothes."

There are some good portions of the book. I was particularly pleased with the section dealing with Playboy magazine as a method of subversively dealing with (and consequently perpetuating) the male fear of sex that has arisen in our culture.

Other than that, silly nonsense.

[Jeremy · Rating 5 out of 5]

I can see why this work was seen as so important in its time. Remains relevant today. Hard to categorize this.

[Stephen Hayes · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not sure if GoodReads will let me post a review

[Trice · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think I would change the subtitle to: Secularization, Urbanization, and Theology in Sociological Perspective. The author's weaknesses in the area of theology are verging on shocking considering where he was (is?) teaching. Found this book incredibly thought-provoking though, as I bounced between arguing with some rather ridiculous statements and finding some real gems of understanding (the chapter on gender and sexuality was particularly strong, as an example from near the end of the book). My biggest argument with him is that he states he's coming at this from a theological perspective, but most of the book seems to treat God as a human mental concept rather than as the Creator of the universe. There were some places that seemed interesting exceptions to this perspective, but I wonder if he was simply using the common language of Christians without the same underlying understanding. If I ever get around to rereading some of the books that I think particularly deserve that attention, this will be among them.

[Leigh Anne · Rating 3 out of 5]

Seminal work of 20th-century Protestant theology that inspired the Catholic liberation theology movement. much of what Cox has to say about technology and urban living is surprisingly resonant today -- at some points, even prescient. Cox explores how to have a relationship with God in a secular age, mostly by questioning the nature of the words "relationship" and "God." Heady stuff for theists to chew on.

[Lukas Szrot · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am not a theologian so I cannot judge the merit of Cox's theology. But as a sociologist and religion scholar I found a lot to like in this controversial little book--it nicely and accessibly frames some of the controversies, hopes, and pitfalls of secularization theory. Though it is a bit dated it is worth a read among those interested in the relationship between Christianity and modernity.

[Phil Whittall · Rating 3 out of 5]

How should Christians view the city? It’s been a much discussed question in recent years, particularly with the rise of the metro-evangelicals and a fresh focus on reaching the cities of the world. Leading figures such as Tim Keller have given a great deal of thought to the gospel and the city.

Yet long before the reformed crowd spoke of cities, contextualisation and the urban context of the gospel, there was The Secular City: Secularization and Urbanization in Theological Perspective by Harvard professor, Harvey Cox. First published in 1965 it has become something of a classic and yet I’ve encountered very little recent work that has engaged (or even referenced, I think) Cox’s work. This is a shame because although there is much which has changed since the sixties and there is a significantly different theological view at work, there are so many intriguing ideas that could prove to be very helpful.

Cox’s basic thesis is that the city and more specifically, contemporary secular cities, are not places to avoid but places to celebrate, not places for the church to run away from but the very places the church ought to be. So far, so good. In the big picture there is much to agree with. As usual the devil is in the detail.

Cox outlines three stages in human development, the age of the tribe, the age of the town and the age of the technopolis. We live in the age of the secular city.

“In our day the secular metropolis stands as both the pattern of our life together and the symbol of our view of the world.” (p1)
He was right in the sixties and he’s still right 50 years later. Cities dominate the landscape with ever-increasing power and magnetic force.

Cox also argues that the contemporary city is a secular space and so some attention should be given to what Cox means by secularisation (which Cox supports) and secularism (which Cox is against).

Secularisation is, in Cox’s view, a simple pragmatic focus on present issues not dominated by theological questions or shaped by the thought of worlds beyond. It is man finally growing up and essentially not making policy decisions based on supernatural beliefs.

“The forces of secularization have no serious interest in persecuting religion. Secularization simply bypasses and undercuts religion and goes on to other things. It has relativized religious world-views and thus rendered them innocuous. Religion has been privatized.”
This is a fascinating insight and one I think that aptly describes my adopted society of Sweden, one of the most secular of all. The church is mostly ignored and is mostly innocuous. Religion is a very private matter.

Cox goes on,

“The age of the secular city, the epoch whose ethos is quickly spreading into every corner of the globe, is an age of ‘no religion at all.’ It no longer looks to religious rules and rituals for its morality or its meanings.”
At this point, where evangelicals and Cox are most likely to part ways because Cox sees this as a good thing, a sign of the maturing of humanity in becoming what God intended. Evangelicals have tended to be deeply suspicious of all things secular.

What’s needed is some slightly deeper reflection. There are few Christians who would argue that nations like Iran or Saudi Arabia becoming more secular would be a bad thing. It would be naive to think that their problems simply stem from the fact that they have the wrong religion. History offers plenty of examples of Christian theocracies doing no better than Muslim ones of governing well. A more secular approach in all of those nations would mean more freedoms and therefore more opportunities for other religions and for the church.

Secularization, a historical process that Cox regards as inevitable and irreversible, though is not the same as secularism.

“The era of the secular city is not one of anti-clericalism or feverish antireligious fanaticism. The anti-Christian zealot is something of an anachronism today…” (p2)
Which given the profile of the new-atheists might seem to be just plain wrong but again we need to stop and think. I would argue that the prevailing attitude would be to view Dawkins et al in exactly the same way as evangelicals. With deep suspicion. It’s not that people might think that the atheists are wrong but their stridency to put down their opponents just isn’t on, why can’t we just ignore each other and carry on shopping? I think Cox is right because,

“Secularism, on the other hand, is the name for an ideology, a new closed world-view which functions very much like a new religion.” (p21)

It’s the difference between Richard Dawkins and Alain de Botton.

Cox then gives useful descriptions of life in a city, the need for anonymity, the necessity of mobility and looks as at a few cities he has visited as examples of the rise of the secular city.

Basically wherever Cox talks sociology I agree with him, wherever he talks theology I almost always disagree. Notwithstanding that, I thought there were two major ideas that were hugely intriguing even though they were developed in a direction I wouldn’t walk in.

The first is the church as God’s avant-garde and the second is the church as cultural exorcist. Both terms rich in possibility. At this point Cox, does what the metro-evangelicals swear by, contextualization noting that the church is likely to look different in different cities. Cox then interprets the work of the church is largely social gospel terms, not wrong but incomplete, all change at a society level without ever calling a person to repent.

The idea of the church as God’s avant-garde though has much creative power to it, we are heralds of a coming age, we live in the now but we’re from the not-yet. Art, song, culture, communal life should all have a different quality to it – a community pregnant with heavenly life.

For Cox, the church as cultural exorcist doesn’t actually mean the casting out of demons from people (because, they aren’t actually real, we’ve grown up from such childish beliefs) but the casting out of modern principalities and powers. For Cox in 60s America racism was firmly in view. A power to be overthrown and exorcised. This isn’t wrong, but I just see no need to sacrifice the reality of a personal demon for that of the societal ones.

Time and time again in reading The Secular City I came across insightful analysis and analytical insight. Sharp prods in the ribs of a docile church, the consumer society and an eager desire to strip away the last vestiges of Christendom. There are interesting thoughts on the future shape of the church (I’ll save that for a future post) and a positive call to embrace not recoil from the secular city.

Yet time and time again, I found Cox’s liberal theology devoid of power, devoid of a transforming Jesus that changes lives, devoid of a gospel that genuinely offers a more compelling vision of life – in the here and now.

I haven’t read the new and revised editions (and I’d be interested in doing so to see how Cox responds to the many changes in the world since 1965) but this is a book that deserves a fresh audience. I’d recommend it to all urban church planting pioneers not necessarily because they’ll agree with all the conclusions but that through engaging with this work they will find ideas and projects to shape the church in the city.

[Triss Smith · Rating 2 out of 5]

In putting religion in atheism and atheism in religion, Cox successfully pleases nobody…what did God say about the lukewarm again…?

I give him two stars because Cox is observant and intelligent. He has some really interesting insights that made me think, mostly about patterns of human history, but sometimes about the church. Unfortunately, this insight does not extend to the Bible, which he seems to have SparksNotes’d.

I mean, what’s all this about God being “fully other” than man? Did he read John? He even makes the claim that God doesn’t want man to be interested in Him, but in his fellow man! The same God who asked us to leave, if necessary, our families, completely forsaking them, in preference to Him? What a ridiculous interpretation.

Cox ignores the personal faith aspect of Christianity, preferring to speak of the Church as an institution, which does harm to his thesis - but it would still have value…IF he could produce evidence that he’s read the Bible before.

That said, Cox was politically ahead of his time. I agree that a conservative church is nonsense, and the church should make every effort to make like Jesus and meaningfully correct the injustices of society. That shouldn’t, however, cancel out its rightful primary function as a religious institution.

I don’t know who’s behind this. Probably Screwtape.

[Mick Fitzgibbons · Rating 3 out of 5]

I thought this book was very interesting. There were a lot of insights about the secular city that I found applicable to this day. As a Christian living in a secular city and attending a secular university this book seemed like it was tailored to me. A more difficult read as the English is from the 60s, but enjoyable nonetheless.

[Adam · Rating 5 out of 5]

Incredibly insightful and prophetic book from the 60's capturing the role of the church in our modern culture.

[Joe Allison · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sixty years after its first edition, Cox's book still provides vital insight into the mission of the American church.

[Russell Fox · Rating 3 out of 5]

Harvey Cox's The Secular City was published exactly 50 years ago, and it is a fascinating examination of a way of seeing the world (confident in technology, uncomplicatedly liberal, devoutly Protestant, highly educated, and very progressive) that obviously at one time wielded immense influence in America, but today is nowhere to be found in exactly this particular arrangement. The legacy of all the different parts of this worldview are still very much with us, of course; many are strongly criticized, some are accepted without question, but none, I think, are connected to each other the way the elite and forward-thinking pious white liberal Protestants of nearly two generations apparently saw as obvious. I had a profoundly divided reaction to the book: some parts were infuriating to be in their easy acceptance of what I think to be morally and politically, while other parts struck me as containing what was, at the time, historically necessary wisdom.

Cox's main goal is to explain to his similarly mostly elite, mostly Protestant audience why American Protestantism (and American Christianity in general, though his primary target is pretty obvious) shouldn't feel burdened by fears or concerns about secularization or urbanization--which is the legacy of early 20th-century fundamentalism--but rather should embrace all these changes of mid-century America. His reasoning--which is equally grounded in scripture and religious history as in contemporary sociology and theology--is often perceptive. It is true that Christian fellowship and charity is often enabled by the anonymity and diversity of city life, and that pre-urban forms of life easily fell into an static idolatry of place. But in making this defense of the moral possibilities of urban life, he almost completely ignores or minimizes the costs involved. He sets up a (I think) foolish distinction between "tribal" and "town" civilization, and then dismisses the latter as a poor, "bourgeois" transition space between the pre-urban world and the full "technopolis" which he idealizes as a place of both personal development and the liberation of Christianity from traditions and myths which held it back. Agriculture, family ties, and the like only hold back the emergence of a Christian community which is freely chosen, not restricted in its ability to be inclusive of all people. His embrace of technology also means that he embraces the power of a rational state capable of harnessing that technology in the name of progress. It is not surprising that one whole chapter of the book is about "the church has God's avant-garde"--for Cox, urbanism's promise of constant innovation and movement is exactly what the gospel is supposed to be about, not metaphysical speculations about nature or law.

In short, the Kennedyesque boosterism of the book really bugged me. But Cox's observations about sex, economics, and multiple other issues were prescient and remain wise, so it's not as though the white liberal Protestant elite of a half-century ago still can teach us, or at least remind us, of some true things. But ultimately, it's a book of lost opportunities to me: a story of American Christianity struggling to adapt, and seeing some great and productive ways of doing so, but being blind to the holes it was digging for itself at the same time.

[Dave Peticolas · Rating 4 out of 5]

One Christian thinker's fascinating perspective on secularization.

[JCR · Rating 5 out of 5]

A classis! Cox lays out the case for the modern city. More true today than ever.