Secularism and ‘Mere Christendom’

Doug Wilson on the task before us:

I have spoken before about the 2023 book by Doug Wilson, Mere Christendom. In it I focused on one chapter of the book that looks directly at this issue, including definition of terms and what his broad concerns are. That piece can be read here: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2026/02/12/wilson-and-mere-christendom/

Much of the material found in this book is gleaned from his previous articles, columns and talks. Indeed, early on he informs us that he had a grandson trawl through heaps of his earlier work to get some of the stuff that he uses here. (Hmm, nice of the boy – maybe I can get one of my sons to do the same with my large supply of writings!)

Because the book is mainly a collection of past writings, it can easily be broken up into bite-sized pieces, even though there is a coherence to what is found therein. So to offer some select quotes from the book will not do it any injustice. However, as I said in my previous article, one is best placed to read the entire volume to get the full picture of what he is trying to say.

So here then are some more quotes which I found to be of value. Four are from Chapter 1: “The Wickedness of Secularism” and the next three quotes come from Chapter 3: “Tactics of the Enemy”:

What is secularism? Aside from being the villain of this book? Secularism is the idea that it is possible for a society to function as a coherent unit without reference to God. It is the idea that a culture can operate on the basis of a metaphysical and religious agnosticism. It is the idea that we can understand what human rights are without knowing what a human being actually is.

There are often occasions for many to trot out that apocryphal Luther quote about preferring to be governed by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian. Right, but what if you get a foolish Turk? Now what? But even though Luther didn’t say it, I would agree with him if he had — I personally would much rather be governed by a pagan who acted like a Christian than a Christian who acted like a pagan. But what we always seem to get are pagans who act like pagans, and then, when we object to that, we are soundly refuted by a misunderstanding of something Luther never said. All I want is a wise Christian. Is that too much to ask? Apparently. (pp. 3-4)

The public square cannot be neutral. If Jesus is Lord, then Caesar isn’t. If Jesus is Lord, the liberties of those who don’t believe in Him are far more secure than the liberties of everybody in the hands of a Caesar who answers to no one above him.

The liberties of the individual are too precious to be left in the hands of a civic agnosticism. To not know why you are extending liberties to the citizenry is to not know why you would be doing anything bad if you took them all away.

In Christian societies, overreach is a possibility. The Scriptures teach that men are sinners, and men will sin in Christian societies as well as in secular ones. But in secular societies, overreach is not a possibility, but rather a necessity, by definition. If there is no God above the state, then the state becomes god — the point past which there is no appeal. If there is a God above the state, then hubris in high places will always be dealt with appropriately.

Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. If the Spirit has been exiled, how can we still have what only He can give? How can we reject the Giver, and keep the gift? Those who puff themselves up and say that they can do this thing need to remember — wisdom is always vindicated by her children. (pp. 4-5)

One of the characteristics of lust is that it hates to be constrained. This applies as much to political lusts as to sexual desire, and it explains a great deal about the dishonesty of the progressive mentality. How many times, when you have asked someone a specific question about some important issue, have you been told by that person that he “hates labels.” I dare say. Labels interfere with getting what you want. People remind you tomorrow of what you said yesterday, and this restricts your freedom of movement.

Augustine wrote wisely of the libido dominandi, the lust for power, characteristic of so many progs on the campaign trail, and even more characteristic of them when they get hold of the levers of power.

Those who are in favor of smaller government are, when this is translated, in favor of a smaller capacity for coercion. Those who are in favor of bigger government are in favor of increased opportunities for coercion. The libido dominandi is therefore characteristic of those who want more access to coercive policies, and it is not characteristic of those who don’t want that. So if someone says, using labels, that he is pro-life, pro-free-market, anti-big-government, he is saying that he believes we must reject the temptations of libido dominandi… (pp. 14-15)

If relativism is the case (and secularism is a form of relativism), then anything goes. If relativism is the case, then anything goes, including the worst forms of absolutism. This is why, incidentally, secularism has mounted such a pitiful response to the demands of fundamentalist Islam.

Secularism is relativistic, of necessity, because all societies reflect the nature and attributes of their god. If man is god, as he is in secularism, then the ethics of that society will reflect he nature of man. But man changes all the time. He is unstable, like water. Secular ethics is relativistic because man, the god of the system, is himself relative. He is relative to his genetics, his environment, his upbringing, and he says whatever comes into his head. And whatever comes into his head becomes law. For the time being. (p. 16)

One of the central tactics of our regnant secularism is to pretend that their foundational assumptions are religiously neutral, and that we need not look at them. In other words, they hide the foundations they have poured, they hide the blueprints of the building they want to build, and if you point to that foundation, or to the blueprints they are holding behind their back, they resort to calling you a conspiracy theorist. A time will come when they are open about it, but until then, they deny that their atheistic secularism leads of necessity to moral anarchy. But it has to. (p. 35)

Chesterton says somewhere that the modern world has insisted on exiling the Savior, but has done so from the midst of the story of the Gadarene demoniac. The upshot of this means that our naked public square has been purged of any reference to Jesus, but we are now left with the devils and with the swine.

Too many times Christians have placed the consequences of not believing in Jesus too far off in the eschatological distance. The things we say about that placement are quite true, as far as it goes — to be admitted into the presence of God we must be clothed in the righteousness of Jesus Christ, and if we are banished from the presence of God on that great day, it will be because we never knew Him.

But not knowing Him does not just result in Hell later. It also means that when we refuse to acknowledge Him here and now, the end result is that we start building little prototypes of Hell in order to test-drive them. And that is why the public square rapidly becomes a haunt for owls and jackals. (p. 38)

Private persons should not be coerced into approval of what they know to be sin—that is where liberty of conscience applies. Assuming that something can be sinful without being criminal, a free citizen should have the right to disassociate himself from it, to not approve of it. But the public magistrate does not have liberty of conscience in this same way. The magistrate is God’s deacon, God’s servant, and is solemnly charged by God to reward the righteous and punish the wrongdoer (Rom. 13:1-4). This cannot be confounded with rewarding the wicked and punishing the righteous. That would be to frame mischief with a law (Ps. 94:20). And when the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do (Ps. 11:3)? (pp. 44-45)

[1449 words]