The Biblical Sacred-Secular Distinction - Its Necessity and the Danger Posed by its Loss

https://www.ilfordipc.co.uk/the-bible-teaches-the-sacred-secular-distinction/   

This was a refreshing read to say the least. It exhibits the very rare case in which someone seems to be able to grasp that while every aspect of our lives is shaped by our faith, there is nevertheless still a critical distinction between the sacred and secular and that it's something explicitly taught in Scripture.

Those who reject this distinction are no doubt (in many cases) well-meaning but misled and the erasure of this distinction has led not only confusion but actually Christians being led astray. Thinking they are serving the Kingdom and building it, they fall into a trap and labour to erect a New Babel and inadvertently labour to confuse Zion and Babylon. It's very serious and due to the myriad cultural crises and the compromise and failure of Church leadership, the 21st century Church finds itself on the cusp of ethical collapse, rejecting basic New Testament concepts and imperatives, and in reality is on the verge of a functional apostasy - all in the name of Christ. It's tragic.

The Levitical appeal made in the article is spot on. I would add the Sabbath commandment itself testifies to the distinction - the mundane is not the same as the sacred and the time of collective worship. The Sabbath (sacred time) commandment is broadened and spiritualized in the New Testament (no longer tied to a day) but the basic concept and distinction remains.

I appreciate the Jehoshaphat citation but would also add that example is blurred by the fact that under the Old Covenant, the kingdom itself was also a holy covenanted nation and thus the point the article wishes to make is made even more emphatic under the New Covenant order in which no earthly nation is covenanted or sacred.

The example from the Sermon on the Mount regarding earthly treasure and treasure in heaven is further emphasized by Christ's distinction between Caesar's coin and that which is God's.

For my part, I think a totalizing Christian ethic creates a problem for those who would work in the financial industry given its usurious ethics and the like.

There is nothing wrong with enjoying a meal, or entertainment, but we still do all things as Christians and that should inform how we live and in many cases what we do or don't do. There's no checklist but we should seek wisdom. There are certainly times when I've enjoyed a finer meal with my family - but these are marked occasions, special times that aren't treated casually. We're not 'feasting' in triumph like the Wilsonite dominionist cult nor are we just enjoying the fruits of a middle class lifestyle that we're not part of and actively reject. It's a special occasion. We're not ascetics nor gluttons - and I'm afraid all too often the values of the middle class have normalized the latter and even turned it into a desirable ethos. This mammon-ethos is of course related to not just lifestyle but the financial industry questions just touched on as well - and so much more we might add.

The spiritual/material distinction is everywhere in the New Testament. It's not hard to see why lost academics find Platonic influence in Paul's writings. What startles me is how many Christians these days completely ignore and explain away so much of Paul's teachings - even his larger framework. There's a large narrative-driven structure (informed either explicitly or implicitly) by Dominionist thought that drives most Evangelical and Confessional hermeneutics. And the end result of this loss of the sacred/secular distinction is a kind of monism. Everything is holy and therefore since there are no distinctions it's just as easy for everything to become secular without its proponents realizing it. Viewed through another lens, the loss of distinctions begins to flirt with a kind of pantheism - everything is the Kingdom (holy/sacred) and thus becomes sacramental - food, money, power, sex. It's not too difficult to see why so many people caught up in this end up completely losing their way and fall into all manner of corruption and even debauchery in some cases. Their epistemological, ethical, and spiritual direction goes completely astray. The New Testament repeatedly warns against worldliness, worldly cares, and the like - these are most explained away by today's Church.

The world is passing away (1 John), creation groans, and even more poignantly Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 talks about issues like celibacy and the like in connection with the fact that the 'world is passing away'. The entire point of his discussion is missed, explained away, and in most cases its underlying assumptions are assaulted by today's Evangelical teachers.

Again, the issue here is not a Gnostic rejection of matter and the material. The problem is the matter/material of this fallen world or present evil age. This world is fallen and all the works in it are to be burned up in the fires of judgment. There's no intrinsic problem with having a body - but the legacy of the First Adam was ruined and marked by death. The Second Adam brought redemption but only in the context of union with Him - not a hope for this present evil age. The redemption is not in this age but the age to come. We experience it in this age, these Last Days by means of the Holy Spirit and through the eschatological body - the Church and its rites, mysteries, Word and Sacrament.

And yet, as I have long argued the New Testament teaching could be easily manipulated by a Gnostic framework and I believe this is how these groups made inroads into the Early Church. Today's teaching is just setting aside large portions of Scripture and New Testament teaching in particular.

And since someone will raise the question - what of the two passages that speak of doing all to the glory of God? I'm afraid the common understanding is that these passages give a kind of blanket endorsement to all fields of labour - do whatever you want as long as you do it to God's glory - that's how it's taught in most cases. I wonder how many people bother to read the passages in question?

In 1 Corinthians 10, Paul is exhorting self-denial, putting others first. Eat what is set before you. Sacrifice your own comfort for the sake of others and their flourishing (primarily spiritual we would presume). And so rather than 'empowering' the believer to build a business or wield political power, Paul is calling the Corinthians to set aside pride and ego, and rather than do something, sometimes it's better to not do something, to refrain, out of consideration for others. The passage here does not support the popular Evangelical-Dominionist view.

Paul exhorts the Colossians (chapter 3) to seek things above, not on the Earth. He commands mortification (self-death, self-denial), and to live by an ethos of forgiveness and love. There's nothing here about empowerment and affirmation of worldly pursuits. Further, he gives examples of how to do all in the name of the Lord Jesus - wives submit to husbands (again, self-denial), husbands are to love their wives, children are to obey their parents and this is pleasing to the Lord (which only makes sense if they're reckoned as part of the Body of Christ). Servants are to obey masters and this is all to be done to the Lord and not to men. In each case it's about self-denial. These passages have been completely hijacked by modern world-affirming Dominionist categories that use them to argue there's no sacred-secular distinction.

They in fact teach the opposite of the popular teaching and support the sacred-secular distinction rather than eliminate it - remember this ethic was all premised on the notion of seeking things above, and not being motivated by earthly cares. Or in another capacity these exhortations are simply dealing with ethical imperatives that if applied in the secular realm only lead to loss and ridicule.

I hope more people take this message to heart. The loss of this distinction - which has basically been rendered a heresy by most of the Evangelical-Confessional world is perilous. In fact I would say to reject the distinction - if not an outright heresy, it certainly opens the door to many errors and has led many people down a road to deception and perdition.

The fact that this article was published by a group (the IPC) that finds its roots in the teaching and ministry of Francis Schaeffer is not only supremely ironic but poetic. It represent a categorical rejection of his thinking and influence - Schaeffer is one of the great villains in this larger story, this shift in theology and ethics that took place in earnest during the 20th century. Praise be to God there are some in his circles that have come to reject the foundation stones of Schaeffer's thought and teaching! That is something to be encouraged about. And the fact that is arises in a context outside of the United States also gives me some hope. Maybe, the dark turn taken by American Christianity is causing some to re-examine some basic questions. Let's hope so.