Endorsements Are Back for The End of Secularism

“Hunter Baker’s volume is a much-welcomed addition to the debate on the role of religion and faith in the public square. To the confusion regarding matters of religion and politics, Baker brings illuminating clarity. To the ambiguity regarding the meaning and place of pluralism, he provides thoughtful analysis. To the directionless arguments for secularization, he offers an insightful and discerning response. This much-needed volume provides a readable, historically-informed, and carefully-reasoned case for the place of faith in our public deliberations. It is with great enthusiasm that I recommend it.”

—David S. Dockery, President, Union University


“Hunter Baker is a gifted writer who knows how to communicate the issue of secularism to an audience that desperately needs to hear a critical though winsome voice on this matter. In many ways, the book is a twenty-first-century sequel to the late Richard John Neuhaus’s classic, The Naked Public Square. Baker understands the issues that percolate beneath the culture wars. They are not merely political but theological and philosophical, and they are rarely unpacked in an articulate way so that the ordinary citizen can gain clarity. Baker offers his readers that clarity.”

—Francis J. Beckwith, Professor of Philosophy and Church-State Studies, Baylor University; author, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice


“Hunter Baker is one of the sharpest thinkers in contemporary American Christianity. This work will provoke the same kind of conversation ignited by Richard John Neuhaus’s The Naked Public Square. Read this book slowly with a highlighter and a pen in hand as you think about questions ranging from whether the Ten Commandments ought to hang in your local courthouse to whether there’s a future for public Christianity.”

—Russell D. Moore, Dean, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary


“The task of discerning the alternative to practical atheism lived by many nominal Christians and the pretense of a neutral secularism has been made easier by this rich study. Once authentic Christians grasp the ramifications of the incarnation of Christ, then and only then will it be apparent that, as Baker argues, “secularism only makes sense in relation to religion.”

—Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute


“The End of Secularism debunks the widespread myth that secularism is the inevitable wave of the future, coming at us like an unstoppable force of nature. Baker shows instead that the secularization of society was the result of deliberate planning and concerted effort by a relatively few determined ideologues. Baker makes it clear that what they did can be undone. We shall be hearing more from this promising young man.”

—Jennifer Roback Morse, Founder and President, The Ruth Institute


“Hunter Baker has produced a powerful and carefully constructed argument against the secularists in our midst who are attempting to subvert the traditions that gave birth to our unique national enterprise.”

—Herbert London, President, Hudson Institute; author, America’s Secular Challenge



5 thoughts on “Endorsements Are Back for The End of Secularism

  1. Unconventionally…… Groovy, Dude! No one has ever thought my thoughts were remotely worth thinking about like this. =) I think…

  2. Where did the culture of secularism come from?

    Essentially it is culture formed in the image of the ideology of scientism. And reductionist exoteric religiosity too.

    Both of which itself began to come into power at the time of the European Renaissance when the focus of humankind shifted from contemplation of the Divine, to that of contemplating and exploiting the latent potentials and possibilities of human beings in and of themselves.

    Because the then church was both riddled with corruption and promoting absurd cosmologies which the very real observations of science quickly disproved, it did not take long for the scientific world-view to eclipse the mythological world-view promoted by the church.

    And what is the very essence of the world-view promoted by both scientism and exoteric religiosity?

    That we are completely separate from the Divine, or that God is entirely other or objective to us, or THE great object.

    That we are completely separate from the world altogether, or that nature is entirely other or objective to us.

    That we are all completely separate from each other, or all others are entirely objective to each of us.

    The moment you conceive or perceive of anything as objective to you, you immediately try to control whatever is thus objectified—and eventually destroy what is thus objectified.

    Which means that our entire culture has created a situation in which we are always at war with the Divine, the world altogether, and each other.

  3. One comment that has always hounded me, is one that my father made to me when I was a young boy. He, being mostly agnostic for how he was treated by those in the church, said something in retrospect is truly profound…

    Why is it when we discover something new about the universe in which we live, do we then say that God has nothing to do with it?

    He asked it like a statement instead of a question, but it still echoes to me.

    Just because we learn a small bit about things through science, doesn’t mean we cannot ascribe the intricacy and delicate complex nature of it to the fact that God created it. My father meant it in reference to gravity, or the big bang theory, or how electrons stay in their orbit, or how our planet orbits the sun… but the question points out something inherent in our skewed thinking. If we can understand it, it must not be God. It’s us defining… well, us. Couple that with what Sue said, and thus we get the dilemma we’re in now.

    Somehow, this type of thinking permeates society at levels to which I’m honestly afraid to delve.

Comments are closed.