It is fascinating to read what other people have to say about the book (The End of Secularism). So far, all the reviewers seem to like it. Some show unconditional positive regard. Others emphasize what they like or don’t like. It seems to hit different people different ways.
For any would be reviewers who are curious, here’s what I’d say up front.
1. The End of Secularism is not a prediction so much as it is an argument for secularism to retire as a supposedly neutral philosophy.
2. The book is designed to make the average reader much more aware of the complexity of the question of religion and politics. A simplistic separation approach doesn’t really do anyone much good.
3. The book is a critique of secularism much more than it is a proposal for a great system of Christian thought. I’m trying to tear one house down in the effort to clear space for a new one.
4. If you take anything away from the book, please pay attention to my arguments about the nature of science and the inadequacy of science as a basis for political thought. To me, this was one of the places where my critique strikes the deepest.
5. Understand the separation of church and state. Support the separation of church and state. DO NOT let it morph into secularism, which goes much too far.
And by the way, the talented Matt Lee Anderson has reviewed the book. I really respect his work and have enjoyed much of what he has written. You can see it here. He focuses the heavy beams on my critique of secular neutrality, but I think other parts of the book are equally important, maybe more so.