What do you think?
Rate this book
The Global Public Square: Religious Freedom and the Making of a World Safe for Diversity
How do we live with our deepest differences?
In a world torn by religious conflict, the threats to human dignity are terrifyingly real. Some societies face harsh government repression and brutal sectarian violence, while others are divided by bitter conflicts over religion's place in public life. Is there any hope for living together peacefully?
Os Guinness argues that the way forward for the world lies in promoting freedom of religion and belief for people of all faiths and none. He sets out a vision of a civil and cosmopolitan global public square, and how it can be established by championing the freedom of the soul—the inviolable freedom of thought, conscience and religion. In particular he calls for leadership that has the courage to act on behalf of the common good.
Far from utopian, this constructive vision charts a course for the future of the world. Soul freedom is not only a shining ideal but a dire necessity and an eminently practical solution to the predicaments of our time. We can indeed maximize freedom and justice and learn to negotiate deep differences in public life. For a world desperate for hope at a critical juncture of human history, here is a way forward, for the good of all.
For more about the book, visit http://www.ivpress.com/publicsquare
In a world torn by religious conflict, the threats to human dignity are terrifyingly real. Some societies face harsh government repression and brutal sectarian violence, while others are divided by bitter conflicts over religion's place in public life. Is there any hope for living together peacefully?
Os Guinness argues that the way forward for the world lies in promoting freedom of religion and belief for people of all faiths and none. He sets out a vision of a civil and cosmopolitan global public square, and how it can be established by championing the freedom of the soul—the inviolable freedom of thought, conscience and religion. In particular he calls for leadership that has the courage to act on behalf of the common good.
Far from utopian, this constructive vision charts a course for the future of the world. Soul freedom is not only a shining ideal but a dire necessity and an eminently practical solution to the predicaments of our time. We can indeed maximize freedom and justice and learn to negotiate deep differences in public life. For a world desperate for hope at a critical juncture of human history, here is a way forward, for the good of all.
For more about the book, visit http://www.ivpress.com/publicsquare
240 pages, Paperback
First published March 20, 2013
11 people are currently reading
264 people want to read
About the author
Os Guinness
87 books353 followersOs Guinness (D.Phil., Oxford) is the author or editor of more than twenty-five books, including The American Hour, Time for Truth and The Case for Civility. A frequent speaker and prominent social critic, he was the founder of the Trinity Forum and has been a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution and a guest scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Studies. He lives near Washington, D.C.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
September 18, 2013
In years past I had a major presence in that segment of Evangelicalism devoted to apologetic confrontation with new religions (“cults”) and certain world religions. After undergoing a paradigm shift I moved away from this type of understanding and way of engagement, and in more recent years have been involved in interreligious encounters that, while not compromising my convictions, are more civil and diplomatic. This has included personal friendships and interactions with people across a religious spectrum, from Mormons to Pagans, Muslims, and atheists. This personal journey of life and faith provides me with the perspective that I bring to my review of Os Guinness’ new volume, The Global Public Square.
This book addresses a pressing challenge to everyone in our postmodern, post-9/11 world. Guinness summarizes the questions succinctly in the book’s opening pages:
“How do we live with our deepest differences, especially when those differences are religious and ideological, and very especially when those differences concern matters of our common public life? In short, how do we create a global public square and make the world safer for diversity?”(13)
Guinness is not the first one to raise such important questions, but as an Evangelical, his willingness to address them and provide the responsive proposal that he does is rare. Evangelicals have shown more interest in evangelism and apologetics as ways of engagement, in proclaiming and defending our faith and its subcultural boundaries than we have in tackling the pressing matters of religious and ideological difference with concerns for civility and diversity. Guinness is to be commended for overcoming Evangelical blind spots, and for suggesting ways forward that invite participation across the religious, irreligious, and ideological spectrum.
The problem, as Guinness defines it, is a loss of religious freedoms around the world, and a failure to be able to live with our diversity in civility in the public square. Guinness argues that in response we must work toward “soul freedom,” a variation of Roger Williams’ term “soul liberty” and his work in support of this in a prior generation. The author defines “soul freedom” as “the inviolable freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief that alone does full justice to the dictates of our humanity.” Guinness does not limit soul freedom to Christians, or even to those with religious convictions, but instead recognizes that in order to overcome this challenge, soul freedom must be fought for, applied to, and involve all people of diverse and competing convictions, because “no solution will be possible without a partnership between responsible religious believer and responsible secularists” (27).
Guinness is aware that religious freedom and civility in diversity are not pursued as the most pressing of issues of our time, but he correctly notes that this underlies many of the problems we face and which receive far more attention, discussion, and strategy formation. Whether “terrorism, famine, HIV/AIDS, nuclear proliferation, environmental degradation and shortages of water” (31), Guinness shrewdly argues that “how we live with our deepest difference lies behind so many of the other issues and the way they will be handled” (Ibid.).
In response to the challenges we face, Guinness draws attention to two extreme competing visions that have been offered as the way forward. This includes two competing visions of public life, the naked public square, which excludes religious expression from public life, and the sacred public square, that tends to provide a preferred position or monopoly in public life to a religious tradition in a given culture (122). In Guinness’ view, both of these positions are problematic, and instead he provides his own proposal for a civil public square. This is set forth in chapter 8, the heart of this volume, where the author sets forth his alternative model:
“A civil public square is a vision of public life in which citizens of all faiths and none are free to enter and engage public life on the basis of their faith, as a matter of freedom of thought, conscience and free exercise, but within an agreed framework of what is understood and respected to be just and free for people of all other faiths too, and thus for the common good.” (181)
Guinness connects three key principles to his vision of a civil public square that include “[r]eciprocity, mutuality and universality…” This involves an application of the Golden Rule to a form of political embodiment in addition to its usual association with the realm of religion. It means that “a right for a Christian is automatically a right for a Jew, an atheist, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Mormon, a Hindu, a Scientologist and for every believer in every faith under the sun as the earth turns” (181). The inclusion of these elements make for interactions between human beings who have the strongest disagreements over some of the most pressing issues of life, thus working word a public square that is marked by both civil and diversity.
Some may be quick to dismiss Guinness’ proposal as naïve or utopian, but the author is very aware of the challenges, and he is aware of shortcomings of other approaches, such as academic papers, interfaith dialogues, and various civic activities (42). These responses, while conducted by sincere people wanting to make a difference in the world, fall short of having the power to do so. In particular, Guinness mentions common expressions of interfaith dialogue and cooperation, often characterized by a tendency to focus only on commonalities for the common good while excluding any discussion of difference or attempts at persuasion as out of bounds. The author sees these forms of dialogue as deficient. “Differences make a difference, both to individuals and to whole societies and even to civilizations. Those differences are important, and they have to be engaged honestly and debated fearlessly” (186). Guinness draws attention to helpful forms of dialogue, such as “A Common Word” among Muslims and Christians, but argues that dialogue alone “as the solution to diversity dies hard” (Ibid.).
Civility has been the focus of discussion within Evangelicalism in recent years, largely because of the work of Richard Mouw through his book Uncommon Decency: Christian Civility in an Uncivil World (IVP Books, 2010) and its application in Evangelical-Mormon dialogue. Guinness takes this further and helpfully addresses civility and what this means as a central element of his proposal. First, he responds to allegations that this involves cowardice as a preferred way for those who do not posses “a refined distaste for the nastiness of differences” (182). This is not the case for this author. Rather, for him civility “is a tough-minded classical virtue and duty that enables citizens to take their public differences seriously, debate them robustly, and negotiate and decide them peacefully rather than violently” (Ibid.). In addition, civility is not a “stand-alone virtue” that operates alone, but must be utilized as part of a broader agenda in the service of soul freedom for all. Finally, Guinness does not see a dichotomy between civility and contestation with others. For him, “civility and contest are real, robust and not opposites” (188).
Much of Guinness’ discussion paralleled the concerns, perspectives, and approaches of the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy. In addition to advocating civility, working together as co-belligerents across religious and ideological divides, and emphasizing the significance of differences in our interactions, Guinness also shares FRD’s recognition of the expansion, significance, and problem of the new the public square. He recognizes the importance of “new technologies and social media” (48), that are so influential and formative that the “public square has morphed again through the power of the Internet and has gone from the physical to the metaphorical to the virtual” (55). This worldwide platform means that “...even when we are not speaking to the world, we can be heard by the world” (Ibid.), and this global platform is marred by the problem of increased incivility and “degrading rhetoric” from anonymous individuals (56). Guinness wonders whether we can ”in the next twenty-five years forge a new understanding of what it means for global citizens to debate other global citizens in a manner that the issues deserve,…” (56).
I believe that we can and will forge a new understanding and habit of the heart. FRD is putting into place the resources that directly address these challenges, such as The World Table (TWO). TWO is a new online forum that will fundamentally change the way we interact online, and beyond. It is a place for people interested in having real conversations about things that really matter. Members at TWO can post content to their Table from around the web and rate and discuss the behavior of media personalities, politicians, religious leaders, and others, share tables with other members, and start discussions and ask honest questions about anything. Currently undergoing beta testing, TWO draws upon the principles of social psychology in order to transform behavior and improve the way in which we engage each other. TWO is but one tool of FRD that also includes the work of its chapters in various religious traditions. Through intra- and inter-religious efforts, I believe that FRD is doing work that will be instrumental in realizing the vision for soul freedom that Guinness sets forth.
Os Guinness has provided a real service in not only raising the issues of religious freedom and civility in diversity, but in also providing a proposal for addressing them. He risks being dismissed as setting forth mere hyperbole, but I believe he is correct to state that, “How we deal with our deepest religious and ideological differences in public life will be a defining issue for the future of mankind” (25). This book needs to be read and discussed widely. It is my hope is that Evangelicals will join Dr. Guinness in wrestling with the challenge of religious freedom, diversity, and civility, and be willing to link arms with other religionists and secularists in navigating a way forward in a new public square.
This book addresses a pressing challenge to everyone in our postmodern, post-9/11 world. Guinness summarizes the questions succinctly in the book’s opening pages:
“How do we live with our deepest differences, especially when those differences are religious and ideological, and very especially when those differences concern matters of our common public life? In short, how do we create a global public square and make the world safer for diversity?”(13)
Guinness is not the first one to raise such important questions, but as an Evangelical, his willingness to address them and provide the responsive proposal that he does is rare. Evangelicals have shown more interest in evangelism and apologetics as ways of engagement, in proclaiming and defending our faith and its subcultural boundaries than we have in tackling the pressing matters of religious and ideological difference with concerns for civility and diversity. Guinness is to be commended for overcoming Evangelical blind spots, and for suggesting ways forward that invite participation across the religious, irreligious, and ideological spectrum.
The problem, as Guinness defines it, is a loss of religious freedoms around the world, and a failure to be able to live with our diversity in civility in the public square. Guinness argues that in response we must work toward “soul freedom,” a variation of Roger Williams’ term “soul liberty” and his work in support of this in a prior generation. The author defines “soul freedom” as “the inviolable freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief that alone does full justice to the dictates of our humanity.” Guinness does not limit soul freedom to Christians, or even to those with religious convictions, but instead recognizes that in order to overcome this challenge, soul freedom must be fought for, applied to, and involve all people of diverse and competing convictions, because “no solution will be possible without a partnership between responsible religious believer and responsible secularists” (27).
Guinness is aware that religious freedom and civility in diversity are not pursued as the most pressing of issues of our time, but he correctly notes that this underlies many of the problems we face and which receive far more attention, discussion, and strategy formation. Whether “terrorism, famine, HIV/AIDS, nuclear proliferation, environmental degradation and shortages of water” (31), Guinness shrewdly argues that “how we live with our deepest difference lies behind so many of the other issues and the way they will be handled” (Ibid.).
In response to the challenges we face, Guinness draws attention to two extreme competing visions that have been offered as the way forward. This includes two competing visions of public life, the naked public square, which excludes religious expression from public life, and the sacred public square, that tends to provide a preferred position or monopoly in public life to a religious tradition in a given culture (122). In Guinness’ view, both of these positions are problematic, and instead he provides his own proposal for a civil public square. This is set forth in chapter 8, the heart of this volume, where the author sets forth his alternative model:
“A civil public square is a vision of public life in which citizens of all faiths and none are free to enter and engage public life on the basis of their faith, as a matter of freedom of thought, conscience and free exercise, but within an agreed framework of what is understood and respected to be just and free for people of all other faiths too, and thus for the common good.” (181)
Guinness connects three key principles to his vision of a civil public square that include “[r]eciprocity, mutuality and universality…” This involves an application of the Golden Rule to a form of political embodiment in addition to its usual association with the realm of religion. It means that “a right for a Christian is automatically a right for a Jew, an atheist, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Mormon, a Hindu, a Scientologist and for every believer in every faith under the sun as the earth turns” (181). The inclusion of these elements make for interactions between human beings who have the strongest disagreements over some of the most pressing issues of life, thus working word a public square that is marked by both civil and diversity.
Some may be quick to dismiss Guinness’ proposal as naïve or utopian, but the author is very aware of the challenges, and he is aware of shortcomings of other approaches, such as academic papers, interfaith dialogues, and various civic activities (42). These responses, while conducted by sincere people wanting to make a difference in the world, fall short of having the power to do so. In particular, Guinness mentions common expressions of interfaith dialogue and cooperation, often characterized by a tendency to focus only on commonalities for the common good while excluding any discussion of difference or attempts at persuasion as out of bounds. The author sees these forms of dialogue as deficient. “Differences make a difference, both to individuals and to whole societies and even to civilizations. Those differences are important, and they have to be engaged honestly and debated fearlessly” (186). Guinness draws attention to helpful forms of dialogue, such as “A Common Word” among Muslims and Christians, but argues that dialogue alone “as the solution to diversity dies hard” (Ibid.).
Civility has been the focus of discussion within Evangelicalism in recent years, largely because of the work of Richard Mouw through his book Uncommon Decency: Christian Civility in an Uncivil World (IVP Books, 2010) and its application in Evangelical-Mormon dialogue. Guinness takes this further and helpfully addresses civility and what this means as a central element of his proposal. First, he responds to allegations that this involves cowardice as a preferred way for those who do not posses “a refined distaste for the nastiness of differences” (182). This is not the case for this author. Rather, for him civility “is a tough-minded classical virtue and duty that enables citizens to take their public differences seriously, debate them robustly, and negotiate and decide them peacefully rather than violently” (Ibid.). In addition, civility is not a “stand-alone virtue” that operates alone, but must be utilized as part of a broader agenda in the service of soul freedom for all. Finally, Guinness does not see a dichotomy between civility and contestation with others. For him, “civility and contest are real, robust and not opposites” (188).
Much of Guinness’ discussion paralleled the concerns, perspectives, and approaches of the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy. In addition to advocating civility, working together as co-belligerents across religious and ideological divides, and emphasizing the significance of differences in our interactions, Guinness also shares FRD’s recognition of the expansion, significance, and problem of the new the public square. He recognizes the importance of “new technologies and social media” (48), that are so influential and formative that the “public square has morphed again through the power of the Internet and has gone from the physical to the metaphorical to the virtual” (55). This worldwide platform means that “...even when we are not speaking to the world, we can be heard by the world” (Ibid.), and this global platform is marred by the problem of increased incivility and “degrading rhetoric” from anonymous individuals (56). Guinness wonders whether we can ”in the next twenty-five years forge a new understanding of what it means for global citizens to debate other global citizens in a manner that the issues deserve,…” (56).
I believe that we can and will forge a new understanding and habit of the heart. FRD is putting into place the resources that directly address these challenges, such as The World Table (TWO). TWO is a new online forum that will fundamentally change the way we interact online, and beyond. It is a place for people interested in having real conversations about things that really matter. Members at TWO can post content to their Table from around the web and rate and discuss the behavior of media personalities, politicians, religious leaders, and others, share tables with other members, and start discussions and ask honest questions about anything. Currently undergoing beta testing, TWO draws upon the principles of social psychology in order to transform behavior and improve the way in which we engage each other. TWO is but one tool of FRD that also includes the work of its chapters in various religious traditions. Through intra- and inter-religious efforts, I believe that FRD is doing work that will be instrumental in realizing the vision for soul freedom that Guinness sets forth.
Os Guinness has provided a real service in not only raising the issues of religious freedom and civility in diversity, but in also providing a proposal for addressing them. He risks being dismissed as setting forth mere hyperbole, but I believe he is correct to state that, “How we deal with our deepest religious and ideological differences in public life will be a defining issue for the future of mankind” (25). This book needs to be read and discussed widely. It is my hope is that Evangelicals will join Dr. Guinness in wrestling with the challenge of religious freedom, diversity, and civility, and be willing to link arms with other religionists and secularists in navigating a way forward in a new public square.
July 13, 2020
Guinness writes from a Christian perspective, for the whole idea of soul freedom genuinely comes from a foundation built on the Word of God. However, this book is should be read by any thinker that wants to think and live freely. In a world where people and ideas are cancelled daily this book is needed now more so than it was in 2013. Guinness calls for a world that is full of conversation and is full of people seeking to find the truth. Which ultimately allows for freedom of thought and expression. Guinness points to the rise in secularism, and the intolerant left as the root cause of a society that denies anyone who disagrees with their perspective room to speak publicly. While he recognizes that freedom of thought and expression is still present in the United States and that the U.S. is the champion of freedom, he does argue that this freedom is slowly being stripped away. Which is ultimately why he calls for a global public square that sees to all ideas being expressed freely without persecution or oppression.
September 18, 2013
Disclaimer: I received this book from a Goodreads giveaway on the premise that I would review it.
The Global Public Square
The book’s subtitle is “Religious freedom and the making of a world safe for diversity.” The idea is that for maximum “soul freedom” we need neither a “sacred” public square, where only the official/majority religion can speak to public policy (as in countries with a state religion), nor a “naked” public square, where no religion is permitted to speak to public policy (officially atheistic states such as North Korea.) Instead, Mr. Guinness advocates a “civil”public square “in which citizens of all faiths and none are free to enter and engage public life on the basis of their faith, as a matter of freedom of thought, conscience and free exercise, but within an agreed framework of what is understood and respected to be just and free for people of all other faiths too, and thus for the common good.” (p. 180-181)
As that quote might suggest, this book is rather wordy, and Mr. Guinness spends quite a long time talking around the point before coming down to his actual proposals. He does make some good points. Freedom of speech and religion can’t just be made real by laws; they also have to become “habits of the heart.” Many countries sadly have laws that guarantee freedoms that have no actual effect on the ground. And there have been excesses both by those who would insist on imposing their religious beliefs as law, and those who would ban all religious expression from public areas.
On the other hand, there are times when Mr. Guinness’ viewpoint becomes a little off, as for example claiming that human rights without a faith basis aren't “real.” He also elides the purpose for which “under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance, and fails to note that the ACLU does, in fact, work to protect religious expression when it is being unconstitutionally oppressed. A particularly sticky subject touched upon but not thought about deeply here is whether someone who is in control of a secular institution can impose their religious beliefs on their employees or customers. (Mr. Guinness seems to believe the answer is “yes.”)
Also, he does that thing where polyamory is in a sentence that makes it seem morally equivalent to bestiality and female genital mutilation.
There are certainly thought-provoking ideas in this book, and if you are concerned about the role of religion and free speech in public policy, it’s one source to consider. But have a grain of salt with you at all times.
The Global Public Square
The book’s subtitle is “Religious freedom and the making of a world safe for diversity.” The idea is that for maximum “soul freedom” we need neither a “sacred” public square, where only the official/majority religion can speak to public policy (as in countries with a state religion), nor a “naked” public square, where no religion is permitted to speak to public policy (officially atheistic states such as North Korea.) Instead, Mr. Guinness advocates a “civil”public square “in which citizens of all faiths and none are free to enter and engage public life on the basis of their faith, as a matter of freedom of thought, conscience and free exercise, but within an agreed framework of what is understood and respected to be just and free for people of all other faiths too, and thus for the common good.” (p. 180-181)
As that quote might suggest, this book is rather wordy, and Mr. Guinness spends quite a long time talking around the point before coming down to his actual proposals. He does make some good points. Freedom of speech and religion can’t just be made real by laws; they also have to become “habits of the heart.” Many countries sadly have laws that guarantee freedoms that have no actual effect on the ground. And there have been excesses both by those who would insist on imposing their religious beliefs as law, and those who would ban all religious expression from public areas.
On the other hand, there are times when Mr. Guinness’ viewpoint becomes a little off, as for example claiming that human rights without a faith basis aren't “real.” He also elides the purpose for which “under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance, and fails to note that the ACLU does, in fact, work to protect religious expression when it is being unconstitutionally oppressed. A particularly sticky subject touched upon but not thought about deeply here is whether someone who is in control of a secular institution can impose their religious beliefs on their employees or customers. (Mr. Guinness seems to believe the answer is “yes.”)
Also, he does that thing where polyamory is in a sentence that makes it seem morally equivalent to bestiality and female genital mutilation.
There are certainly thought-provoking ideas in this book, and if you are concerned about the role of religion and free speech in public policy, it’s one source to consider. But have a grain of salt with you at all times.
January 13, 2015
Religious freedom—and discrimination—has been in the news quite a bit in recent years. And these headlines haven’t merely been about Christians being persecuted for their faith in places like Iran and North Korea, or Muslims in Burma, or Hindus in Pakistan. No, the issue has recently been hitting closer to home, especially with the controversial HHS contraceptive mandate, which led Timothy Dolan to say on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, “We are concerned as pastors with the freedom of the Church as a whole—not just for the full range of its institutional forms, but also for the faithful in their daily lives—to carry out the mission and ministry of Jesus Christ.”
It would seem that religious freedom is a cause nearly everyone should be able to support. The vast majority of the people on this planet, after all, would self-identify as religious—and arguably even secularists, whether they know it or not, have their own brand of faith (as one incisive observer put it 35 years ago, regardless of who you are and what you may or may not believe, “you’re gonna have to serve somebody”).
This is clearly nothing new. Adherents of every faith—and those who wish to remain free from the domination of any one religion—all benefit from living in societies that constitutionally make room for all kinds of belief. But curiously, the cause of defending religious freedom is considered by many to be the cause of a limited few. Perhaps, as journalist Ed West supposed, the matter comes down to the fact that the victims of religious persecution throughout the world are “’too Christian’ to excite the Left, and ‘too foreign’ to excite the Right.”
Regardless, as Miroslav Volf argued in his 2011 book A Public Faith, today the world’s religions are growing numerically and in terms of global influence. There may have been a time when religions were for the most part geographically sequestered, but today we’re literally each other’s neighbors. And things get complicated when we begin asserting our competing visions of public life. So what do we do?
There are many thoughtful Christians seeking to answer that question, and among them is Os Guinness, an author and social critic with some thirty books to his name, including such works as The Call, The Case for Civility, and Unspeakable—each of which I heartily commend. In his new book, The Global Public Square: Religious Freedom and the Making of a World Safe for Diversity, Guinness offers “one proposal for a constructive solution” to the question, “What kind of a world community do we want to build and live in together?”
Guinness lays out his proposal as an eight-step “grand global revaluation” that he believes would lead to a world in which freedom and justice could thrive in a pluralistic context. I won’t summarize or outline each of those steps here. What I will do is share four key lessons I gleaned from my reading of the book.
1. Religious freedom is essential for human flourishing. This is true both individually and corporately. “True human flourishing requires a form of harmony that blends diversity with genuine liberty,” writes Guinness. “The challenge of our time is to blend diversity with liberty and still create harmony.” Though it is often framed as a matter of us versus them, religious freedom is for the good of all.
2. To reappropriate a U2 lyric, we can’t deny for others what we demand for ourselves in terms of religious freedom. Those of us who take a principled stance in calling for religious freedom must insist on this freedom for all—not just for our own tribe. Put another way, if religious freedom is to be legitimate, it means that any rights we claim for Christians must be assured to those of all faiths.
3. While threats to religious freedom in the West are not presently equal to those in places where people are martyred for their faith, this doesn’t mean these concerns closer to home don’t matter. People of conscience shouldn’t wait to defend freedom of religion against those who have competing ambitions—including theocrats and fundamentalist secularists alike—until the threats become life-threatening. Religious freedom is about human flourishing, after all, and there’s more to flourishing than mere survival.
4. We shouldn’t be content to simply outsource the cause of defending religious freedom to legal professionals and culture warriors. Conversations about religious freedom and discrimination usually bring to mind lawyers and lobbyists, and the content of these discussions consist to a large extent of fear mongering. Though legal and advocacy organizations certainly have their place, there is, thank God, more to the cause of religious freedom than entrenched (and expensive) legal fights. Cultivating habits of the heart, engaging in civic education, being good neighbors, seeking the common good, and being faithful, winsome witnesses all matter just as much as legal battles do. As Guinness writes, despite the important role of the courts, “an ounce of civility would solve a ton of controversies that no litigation will ever help.”
Despite the tremendous importance of those four lessons drawn from Guinness’s insights in this book, I also have a pair of critiques. For one thing, The Global Public Square struck me as unnecessarily repetitive. Granted, a book of 230 pages can’t be considered excessive for a topic of the magnitude of globalization and religious freedom. But on several occasions I found myself experiencing déjà vu moments, and it wasn’t entirely clear why such verbose repetition was entirely necessary.
Second, there was a bit too much preaching to the choir going on, at least for my liking. I’d hazard a guess that most readers of this book would be Christians who already consider religious freedom important. So I couldn’t help but wonder why Guinness spent so much time seeking to demonstrate how religious freedom—largely in the West—is under threat, rather than briefly introducing the problem (which most readers likely already agree upon) before moving on to devote the rest of the book to that “constructive solution” he promised.
Though Guinness’s writing consistently avoids the ugliness of the typical culture warrior, it’s not entirely clear to me how he reconciles this book’s somewhat alarmist tone with that of his thoroughly winsome 2008 book The Case for Civility, in which he wrote so eloquently,
"Above all, we must not only decry the darkness but spread the light. We must not only protest the letter of the First Amendment but live the spirit of its principles—people of conscience in our faiths, who respect the right of freedom of conscience for others; people of truth in our speech, who recognize the right of others to speak freely, too; and people of love in our communities, who recognizing the right of freedom of assembly for all, including those whose same freedom of conscience leads them to speak and assemble in order to disagree with us."
Overall, however, the book is a helpful one for navigating important issues related to religious freedom and discrimination. I’d still encourage citizens concerned with religious freedom for the good of all to begin with Volf’s A Public Faith, but there is much in The Global Public Square to commend as well, and a careful reading of it will be duly rewarded.
- See more at: http://timhoiland.com/2014/03/global-...
It would seem that religious freedom is a cause nearly everyone should be able to support. The vast majority of the people on this planet, after all, would self-identify as religious—and arguably even secularists, whether they know it or not, have their own brand of faith (as one incisive observer put it 35 years ago, regardless of who you are and what you may or may not believe, “you’re gonna have to serve somebody”).
This is clearly nothing new. Adherents of every faith—and those who wish to remain free from the domination of any one religion—all benefit from living in societies that constitutionally make room for all kinds of belief. But curiously, the cause of defending religious freedom is considered by many to be the cause of a limited few. Perhaps, as journalist Ed West supposed, the matter comes down to the fact that the victims of religious persecution throughout the world are “’too Christian’ to excite the Left, and ‘too foreign’ to excite the Right.”
Regardless, as Miroslav Volf argued in his 2011 book A Public Faith, today the world’s religions are growing numerically and in terms of global influence. There may have been a time when religions were for the most part geographically sequestered, but today we’re literally each other’s neighbors. And things get complicated when we begin asserting our competing visions of public life. So what do we do?
There are many thoughtful Christians seeking to answer that question, and among them is Os Guinness, an author and social critic with some thirty books to his name, including such works as The Call, The Case for Civility, and Unspeakable—each of which I heartily commend. In his new book, The Global Public Square: Religious Freedom and the Making of a World Safe for Diversity, Guinness offers “one proposal for a constructive solution” to the question, “What kind of a world community do we want to build and live in together?”
Guinness lays out his proposal as an eight-step “grand global revaluation” that he believes would lead to a world in which freedom and justice could thrive in a pluralistic context. I won’t summarize or outline each of those steps here. What I will do is share four key lessons I gleaned from my reading of the book.
1. Religious freedom is essential for human flourishing. This is true both individually and corporately. “True human flourishing requires a form of harmony that blends diversity with genuine liberty,” writes Guinness. “The challenge of our time is to blend diversity with liberty and still create harmony.” Though it is often framed as a matter of us versus them, religious freedom is for the good of all.
2. To reappropriate a U2 lyric, we can’t deny for others what we demand for ourselves in terms of religious freedom. Those of us who take a principled stance in calling for religious freedom must insist on this freedom for all—not just for our own tribe. Put another way, if religious freedom is to be legitimate, it means that any rights we claim for Christians must be assured to those of all faiths.
3. While threats to religious freedom in the West are not presently equal to those in places where people are martyred for their faith, this doesn’t mean these concerns closer to home don’t matter. People of conscience shouldn’t wait to defend freedom of religion against those who have competing ambitions—including theocrats and fundamentalist secularists alike—until the threats become life-threatening. Religious freedom is about human flourishing, after all, and there’s more to flourishing than mere survival.
4. We shouldn’t be content to simply outsource the cause of defending religious freedom to legal professionals and culture warriors. Conversations about religious freedom and discrimination usually bring to mind lawyers and lobbyists, and the content of these discussions consist to a large extent of fear mongering. Though legal and advocacy organizations certainly have their place, there is, thank God, more to the cause of religious freedom than entrenched (and expensive) legal fights. Cultivating habits of the heart, engaging in civic education, being good neighbors, seeking the common good, and being faithful, winsome witnesses all matter just as much as legal battles do. As Guinness writes, despite the important role of the courts, “an ounce of civility would solve a ton of controversies that no litigation will ever help.”
Despite the tremendous importance of those four lessons drawn from Guinness’s insights in this book, I also have a pair of critiques. For one thing, The Global Public Square struck me as unnecessarily repetitive. Granted, a book of 230 pages can’t be considered excessive for a topic of the magnitude of globalization and religious freedom. But on several occasions I found myself experiencing déjà vu moments, and it wasn’t entirely clear why such verbose repetition was entirely necessary.
Second, there was a bit too much preaching to the choir going on, at least for my liking. I’d hazard a guess that most readers of this book would be Christians who already consider religious freedom important. So I couldn’t help but wonder why Guinness spent so much time seeking to demonstrate how religious freedom—largely in the West—is under threat, rather than briefly introducing the problem (which most readers likely already agree upon) before moving on to devote the rest of the book to that “constructive solution” he promised.
Though Guinness’s writing consistently avoids the ugliness of the typical culture warrior, it’s not entirely clear to me how he reconciles this book’s somewhat alarmist tone with that of his thoroughly winsome 2008 book The Case for Civility, in which he wrote so eloquently,
"Above all, we must not only decry the darkness but spread the light. We must not only protest the letter of the First Amendment but live the spirit of its principles—people of conscience in our faiths, who respect the right of freedom of conscience for others; people of truth in our speech, who recognize the right of others to speak freely, too; and people of love in our communities, who recognizing the right of freedom of assembly for all, including those whose same freedom of conscience leads them to speak and assemble in order to disagree with us."
Overall, however, the book is a helpful one for navigating important issues related to religious freedom and discrimination. I’d still encourage citizens concerned with religious freedom for the good of all to begin with Volf’s A Public Faith, but there is much in The Global Public Square to commend as well, and a careful reading of it will be duly rewarded.
- See more at: http://timhoiland.com/2014/03/global-...
December 26, 2018
Guinness' vast knowledge of world history, and depth of study and thought on the topic of civilisation building, preserving and destroying comes through resoundingly in this book. Guinness explores the topic of religious freedom, and argues convincingly that the existence of a functioning democratic society and freedom for citizens requires a foundation of freedom of conscience and expression for people of all religions and none. A very important book for today and the uncertain future our world is heading for.
July 21, 2018
Good. Main point is: We must allow those with whom we disagree to have the same freedom we want, and only in that freedom can civilization flourish. Peace of Westphalia, baby!
October 20, 2014
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18.
Os Guinness has penned this extended argument as both defense of and elaboration of how this statement passed in the United Nations in 1948 might shape the public squares of our countries nearly 70 years later, in a climate where this "first freedom" may be less enjoyed now than in 1948. Guinness argues here not for the privileging of any religion, or merely for religion at all. Rather his basic argument is that freedom is conscience is one of the things that defines us as human beings. He would argue this applies equally to the atheist and the materialist, as it does to any religious believer and that the compromise of this freedom, by the state or by competing belief systems, weakens this freedom not just for those immediately attacked but for all. Therefore, Guinness argues for neither a sacred public square, privileging a particular religion, nor a naked public square, banishing all religious belief from public discourse, but rather a civil public square where diverse beliefs, religious and secular, might listen and seek to persuade one another with regard to the well-lived life and the well-ordered society.
Guinness expresses grave concern over the impairing of the freedom of conscience in various parts of the world. His concern is not simply the forced conversions of religious believers in parts of Africa and the Middle East or the continuing persecution of religious believers in Communist countries. He equally, and especially has concern for the West, and what he sees are incursions on the singular freedoms of speech and conscience enshrined in documents such as our Bill of Rights. He would argue that mandates in health care laws that force religious organizations to provide abortion and other medical benefits contrary to their faith are such an infringement, as are the bans of religious groups on university campuses who "discriminate" because they require leaders (not participants) to affirm the religious beliefs of the group. He argues that while such impairments of liberty may not affect most of us, we may be witnessing a "death of a thousand cuts." Each chapter concludes with this peroration:
It is time, and past time, to ponder the question. What does it say of us and our times that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights could not be passed today? And what does it say of the future of freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief if it can be neglected and threatened even in the United States, where it once developed most fully--that it can be endangered anywhere? Who will step forward now to champion the cause of freedom for the good of all and for the future of humanity?
Guinness has not left this task to others. In addition to this book, and his recent A Free People's Suicide which I reviewed earlier this year, Guinness helped draft the Global Charter of Conscience, published in Brussels at the European Parliament in June of 2012. It articulates both the inherent rights of freedom of conscience and the necessary responsibilities any society must undertake to sustain that right.
Some might think this either unnecessary fear-mongering on one hand, or impossible idealism on the other. My own sense is that it is a clarion-call alerting us to not take for granted the singular freedoms we have enjoyed in the west and a well-thought out proposal for extending these freedoms in contextually appropriate ways throughout the world.
A friend of mine who is an ancient historian observed that violence, the execution of enemies of a different faith, and the forced conversion of women and children has been the way of the world throughout most of human history. The experience of freedom of speech and conscience of the last few centuries in the West, with all its problems and limits, has been a singular space of civility in a brutal world. If Guinness is right (and I think he is) the choice before us is whether to protect and seek to extend that civil space or to revert to the brutality that is characteristic of most of humanity through most of history that quashes the very thing that makes us most deeply human, our freedom of thought and conscience.
Os Guinness has penned this extended argument as both defense of and elaboration of how this statement passed in the United Nations in 1948 might shape the public squares of our countries nearly 70 years later, in a climate where this "first freedom" may be less enjoyed now than in 1948. Guinness argues here not for the privileging of any religion, or merely for religion at all. Rather his basic argument is that freedom is conscience is one of the things that defines us as human beings. He would argue this applies equally to the atheist and the materialist, as it does to any religious believer and that the compromise of this freedom, by the state or by competing belief systems, weakens this freedom not just for those immediately attacked but for all. Therefore, Guinness argues for neither a sacred public square, privileging a particular religion, nor a naked public square, banishing all religious belief from public discourse, but rather a civil public square where diverse beliefs, religious and secular, might listen and seek to persuade one another with regard to the well-lived life and the well-ordered society.
Guinness expresses grave concern over the impairing of the freedom of conscience in various parts of the world. His concern is not simply the forced conversions of religious believers in parts of Africa and the Middle East or the continuing persecution of religious believers in Communist countries. He equally, and especially has concern for the West, and what he sees are incursions on the singular freedoms of speech and conscience enshrined in documents such as our Bill of Rights. He would argue that mandates in health care laws that force religious organizations to provide abortion and other medical benefits contrary to their faith are such an infringement, as are the bans of religious groups on university campuses who "discriminate" because they require leaders (not participants) to affirm the religious beliefs of the group. He argues that while such impairments of liberty may not affect most of us, we may be witnessing a "death of a thousand cuts." Each chapter concludes with this peroration:
It is time, and past time, to ponder the question. What does it say of us and our times that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights could not be passed today? And what does it say of the future of freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief if it can be neglected and threatened even in the United States, where it once developed most fully--that it can be endangered anywhere? Who will step forward now to champion the cause of freedom for the good of all and for the future of humanity?
Guinness has not left this task to others. In addition to this book, and his recent A Free People's Suicide which I reviewed earlier this year, Guinness helped draft the Global Charter of Conscience, published in Brussels at the European Parliament in June of 2012. It articulates both the inherent rights of freedom of conscience and the necessary responsibilities any society must undertake to sustain that right.
Some might think this either unnecessary fear-mongering on one hand, or impossible idealism on the other. My own sense is that it is a clarion-call alerting us to not take for granted the singular freedoms we have enjoyed in the west and a well-thought out proposal for extending these freedoms in contextually appropriate ways throughout the world.
A friend of mine who is an ancient historian observed that violence, the execution of enemies of a different faith, and the forced conversion of women and children has been the way of the world throughout most of human history. The experience of freedom of speech and conscience of the last few centuries in the West, with all its problems and limits, has been a singular space of civility in a brutal world. If Guinness is right (and I think he is) the choice before us is whether to protect and seek to extend that civil space or to revert to the brutality that is characteristic of most of humanity through most of history that quashes the very thing that makes us most deeply human, our freedom of thought and conscience.
October 28, 2013
Goodreads First Reads Giveaway Book.
------------------------------------
In a world becoming more divided between extreme religion and extreme secularism comes a book with hope of a better future. The Global Public Square: Religious Freedom and the Making of a World Safe for Diversity discusses the threat to human dignity coming from a loss of religious freedoms around the world and its peoples’ inability to live with diversity in civility in the “public square”.
We live in a world with two extreme competing visions. The first is the “naked public square”, which excludes all religious expressions from public life. No praying. No religious jewelry. No religious songs. None of that in the public sector. The result is that the Government becomes the religion through its laws and regulations. And, the second is the “sacred public square”, which dictates a preferred religion. Any other religion is considered heresy and their followers are brutally punished. The state religion becomes the only religion. Both extremes result in no freedom of religion.
To obtain the freedom of religion, which is supported by the constitutions of many world nations, these two extreme groups should work out their differences in a “political framework of rights, responsibilities and respect.” They should work their way towards living in the public square by advocating religious freedom, diversity, and civility. Dr. Guinness concludes this well-researched book (with endnotes) with The Global Charter of Conscience, that addresses a valid solution to this problem.
The author is well qualified to write about this topic. Os Guinness, with a doctorate from Oxford, has authored about 30 books throughout the last several decades dealing with philosophies of character and religion. These include his 2008 book, The Case for Civility: And Why Our Future Depends on It; his 200 book, Steering Through Chaos: Vice & Virtue in an Age of Moral Confusion; and his 1998 book, The Call: Finding and Fulfilling the Central Purpose of Your Life.
For a world looking for solutions to its religious conflicts, The Global Public Square offers a reasonable path forward. Contains good practical advice for our world leaders.
------------------------------------
In a world becoming more divided between extreme religion and extreme secularism comes a book with hope of a better future. The Global Public Square: Religious Freedom and the Making of a World Safe for Diversity discusses the threat to human dignity coming from a loss of religious freedoms around the world and its peoples’ inability to live with diversity in civility in the “public square”.
We live in a world with two extreme competing visions. The first is the “naked public square”, which excludes all religious expressions from public life. No praying. No religious jewelry. No religious songs. None of that in the public sector. The result is that the Government becomes the religion through its laws and regulations. And, the second is the “sacred public square”, which dictates a preferred religion. Any other religion is considered heresy and their followers are brutally punished. The state religion becomes the only religion. Both extremes result in no freedom of religion.
To obtain the freedom of religion, which is supported by the constitutions of many world nations, these two extreme groups should work out their differences in a “political framework of rights, responsibilities and respect.” They should work their way towards living in the public square by advocating religious freedom, diversity, and civility. Dr. Guinness concludes this well-researched book (with endnotes) with The Global Charter of Conscience, that addresses a valid solution to this problem.
The author is well qualified to write about this topic. Os Guinness, with a doctorate from Oxford, has authored about 30 books throughout the last several decades dealing with philosophies of character and religion. These include his 2008 book, The Case for Civility: And Why Our Future Depends on It; his 200 book, Steering Through Chaos: Vice & Virtue in an Age of Moral Confusion; and his 1998 book, The Call: Finding and Fulfilling the Central Purpose of Your Life.
For a world looking for solutions to its religious conflicts, The Global Public Square offers a reasonable path forward. Contains good practical advice for our world leaders.
May 31, 2014
This is a necessary read in a time where polarisation is rampant on many issues. We do need to learn to really listen to each other and debate out of willingness to truly understand our 'opponents', not to score points. Besides some helpful anaysis Guinness touched my heart with this cry. No doubt we face different issues in different countries, but this applies to all of us.
September 30, 2013
Mr. Guinness lays out the discord between the religious community and secularists very clearly. He tells of the historical background of this conflict, present day conflict. He fails to lay out clear and specific solutions, offering very poetic language goals.
April 3, 2014
It was a bit of an eye opening and educational read. I'm glad I picked it up.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews