beyond the sacred and the secular
One of the most immediate implications of genuine monotheism as we have outlined, is that if taken seriosuly, it obliterates any false distinction between the sacred and the secular. If all of the world lies under God’s redeeming claim, and our task as his people is to hallow the everyday, then there can be no place given to the ‘no-god’ zone to which we so easily assign so much of our lives. If we take the advice of the current Alternative Worship Movement, of which I am generally deeply appreciative, one of the tasks of the church in a postmodern context is to make ‘sacred spaces’, places filled with rich and fresh symbolism expressed new forms of media, where people can reconnect with God in new ways. And this all sounds right. But when this impulse is divorced, as it often is, from the overarching task of mission (and that of missional contextualization) then it simply becomes another way in which we separate the sacred from the secular. By setting up a place which we call ‘sacred’ because of the lighting, the incense, and religious feel, what are we thereby saying about the rest of life? Is it not sacred? We cannot escape the conclusion that by setting up so called ‘sacred spaces’ we by implication make all else ‘not-sacred’ thereby assigning a large aspect of life in a non-God, or secular, area. Following the impulses of biblical monotheism rather than setting up some sacred spaces, our task is to make all aspects and dimensions of life sacred—including family, work, play, conflict, etc. and not to limit the presence of God to spooky religious zones.
I use this as an example simply to highlight how deeply dualism, including as it does the idea of the sacred-secular divide, penetrates into our understanding of things, and how Biblical monotheism helps us to develop an all-of-life perspective. Dualism distorts our experience of God, his people, and his world.
People involved in dualistic spiritual paradigms experience God as a church based deity and religion as a largely private affair. Church is largely conceived as a sacred space: the architecture, the music, the liturgies, the language and culture, etc. all collaborate to make this a sacred event not experienced elsewhere in life in quite the same way. In other words, we go to church to experience God, and in truth God is there (He is everywhere and particularly loves to abide with his people,) but the way this is done can tend to create a perception that is very difficult to break—that God is only really encountered in such places and that it requires an elaborate priestly/ministry paraphernalia in order to mediate this experience. (John 4:20-24
.)
Comments
66 Responses to “beyond the sacred and the secular”
Leave a Reply
The Books
Affiliates
Alan,
The sacred/secular divide is a huge problem in the West, fueling materialism, individualism, and little sense of God’s daily presence. I have used your explanation of the Shema, and the NT equivalent of “Jesus is Lord,” to explain away this divide. This explanation makes sense to people, who recognize this divide in their lives.
I do wonder is there is not a place for “sacred space.” The danger is, as you point out, that people will view the rest of life secular. But is there not a place for both God’s transcendance and immanence? God revealed himself in special moments throughout history–in the exodus, in the time of Elijah and Elisha, and in the incarnation. But does this mean that he was dead at other times?
In a worship assembly, then, can there not be moments of extreme “commonality” which is “made sacred,” as well as ambiance and ritual which evoke thoughts of God’s transcendance? Are not both features of God–that he is with us in all of life, and yet that he is above us? Is this not the essence of the incarnation?
Certainly as a practical matter, it is hard to get inspired if one is worshipping in a toilet. Nature, images of beauty and the like seems to invoke something within us that points toward God. Robert Wunthrow’s book, All in Sync, shows this profound link between spirituality and the arts. http://www.amazon.com/All-Sync-Revitalizing-American-Religion/dp/0520246853/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-2137105-9856600?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182747649&sr=8-1
I appreciate your point, and the sacred/secular divide is a huge problem. I just wonder if we cannot have a sacred/special moments of sacred paradigm.
Too bad we are going to just miss being out at Fuller at the same time. It would have been good to get together. Hope to connect again soon, bro.
James
Great post, Alan!
As to John’s question above - there is one sacred place. The body of the believer. ‘Don’t you know that your bodies are a temple of the Holy Spirit?’
So, maybe when many believers are together, such as a worship assemble, something amazing happens because we bring God with us.
I think our job is to make everyday things sacred, but we do this by our right intention and the right direction (towards God).
I always think of Jesus and the lepers when I think of this topic. Lepers were outcasts, unholy, unclean, forced outside the camp and the community. It was the Law. People were afraid of lepers because they were both afraid of leprosy and they were afraid of being made unclean. An unclean thing always made something clean unclean. This pops up in the story of the good Samaritan too. Religious folks didn’t want to get involved because their religious duties would have been hampered by their becoming unclean.
Jesus, however, was so clean that instead of being “infected” by the unclean, he infected the unclean with how clean he was. He healed lepers and brought peace to outcasts because he brought holiness with him. Where Jesus was that was a holy space. Even the most ruthless form of execution became a religious symbol. The epitome of a curse became the epitome of the sacred.
Oddly enough we in the church haven’t thought in these terms. We run back, still slaves in a way, and forget the power that comes with the water of life. We have become so worried about making the sacred secular that we’ve forgotten the core of our mission to make the secular sacred, for God did love “the world.”
I think we’re often so eager to defend God and to preserve our religious feelings that we forget how God revealed himself, coming into the form of a servant, letting go of the sacred for the sake of our salvation.
Seems indeed like we should be about that same business.
Agree totally Alan. One of the things that attracted me to the New Age Movement so many years ago now was its ethos of deconstructing the sacred / secular divide. Many of the pantheist teachers I embraced were deeply critical of “western” dualism and embodied more holistic alternatives. I am indebted to them for that to this day.
You can only imagine how much I struggled with Christendom enshrined dualism when I embraced Jesus as Lord some time after that, having by then recognized dualism owed more to the Platonic world view than the Hebraic one. And I am afraid I see little in the alternative worship movement that has deeply challenged any of that dualism, despite the huge amount of wonderful creativity emerging from those quarters.
Its the reason I firmly place myself in the “missional” camp. I think the only way to challenge this dualism is to move beyond our sacred spaces and practice being sacred in secular spaces so that the distinction becomes blurred.
The perspective I would bring to this though is that even now we are still only playing catch up. There are other religions and irreligious spiritualites that are way ahead of us. I see the emerging church today as being essentially where the New Age Movement was back in the late 80s. We Christians are still 20 years behind the bleeding edge. Better than being 100 years behind I suppose but still behind all the same. We need to move out.
Just a question: could somebody clarify why the sacred/non-sacred divide in the old testament is not the same as the hellenist conception of dualism? Like in Patricks example of lepers, and the other laws on ritual cleanness…
I like what you have to say here, but have you ever thought that for most people it is not an “either/or” dualistic perception? What I mean to say is for most people, me included, its not a question of whether or not Church is sacred and the rest of life is not. We view all of life as sacred, but we view Church as a “place” where we can put the distractions to the sacred aside, and focus on being in the moment with God. I have found it so hard sometimes during the normal course of my day to focus on the sacred around me that I have created a room in my house that is a sacred space. I take time there everyday to read, meditate, be silent, sing etc… Now, am I saying that my room is sacred and the rest of my house and the rest of my day is not? Of course I’m not…but what I am saying is that I am a bonehead who is constantly overcome by busyness, and other things that obscure the sacred in my daily walk and that if I can do one thing to re-capture that, then I will do those things.
Does that make sense?
Alan makes an important point.
Yet we should not think that we can never have special times and places.
One analogy that might be helpful is the idea of creating a romantic environment. A healthy marriage will have intimacy and affection in all circumstances of life. But it would be foolish never to try creating a “special” evening.
It seems that we could create special times and places without making everything else appear “non-sacred.” The language we use to talk about this and the way we go about it are the key, I think.
I’ve been concerned about the very dynamic that Alan addressed. If we are not careful, we simply reinforce the sacred-secular dichotomy. This is an issue that needs much more thought and dialogue.
Rod
Rod and Gary, these are good points. You know, and without being crass, I use the metaphor of the orgasm. Ecstacy, that is literally ’standing out’ of the ordinary is alright. And God knows, we need it. But it must never be made normative. But that’s precisely what acosmic dualism does to our sense of the sacred. It makes the ‘high points’ normative, thus denigrating the normal ‘low points.’ I liken dualistic spirituality to living with a constant orgasm. You think it might be nice, but I reckon it would be painful after a while and you couldn’t keep a decent conversation. You’d get very lonely and you would not even be able to eat! Life would become very dull.
Another framework I have found very useful for exploring these issues is Hiebert’s “Flaw of the Excluded Middle”. Areas that folk religions focus on, such as guidance for everyday life, how to deal with oppressive powers, etc, were secularized in modernist societies. Should it be any surprise these are the same areas irreligious spiritualities are focussing on in the west in postmodernity.
I think I’m going to have to take a trip out to Australia to pick up some new analogies. Suddenly, mine seem so stale and lacking a certain… excitement.
I realize I should expand more for Gary’s benefit. In the Hebraic worldview, the critical metaphysical divide is between Creator and creation. In the Helenistic worldview the critical metaphysical divide is between the seen and the unseen. This is a critical difference and put these two together and a critical conundrum emerges – how do you relate to the unseen creation that sits in the middle between the unseen Creator and the seen creation? Modernity tried to deny it was even there, posing a radical separation between spirituality and everyday life. And the unseen powers that oppress us – market forces, institutionalized injustice, all the isms we must contend with – came to be viewed in purely secular terms. But what if its not that simple? What if, heaven help us, what the Bible has to say about principalities and powers has a real life social, political and economic dimension? How would that change things?
Like I said before, and like Alan said…your voice in our midst brings a crucial, brilliant, dimension that many don’t even realize exists, Matt.
I’ve talked for years about the importance of understanding the difference between the Hebraic and Helenistic worldviews, but had never seen it put this way. I value the unique perspective you bring and the ability you have to bring together things many have never seen as even being related.
…and I’m still processing it all!
Patrick, actually I thought your metaphor that “religious folks didn’t want to get involved because their religious duties would have been hampered by their becoming unclean” was rather apt. I had someone dump on me only last night with accusations that I was contaminating myself.
Few would argue with the transforming power of dedicated times and special spaces. They are used in all walks of life for all kinds of purposes. We have exercise space, study space, therapy space, work space, even third space, and all of them come with expectations about what will happen in that space and how that will effect the other parts of our lives. Maybe the problem with using sacred to describe space is simply that it’s not specific enough. Maybe words like transcendent space, reflective space, expressive space, or even integrating space would be more helpful.
The idea of exercise space sparked something in my mind. I haven’t been to a gym in years, at least five or so. Yet, I’m in fairly good shape. I exercise at home and go running in my neighborhood. The important thing isn’t the gym membership or going to the gym to use the specialized equipment. The important thing is the exercise. The place isn’t important, what is done is important.
As Christians we need to pray. We need to do those things that resonate Christ to this world. But the space and place isn’t important. There’s nothing inherently sacred that makes up for our participation. In fact, having a sacred place might be a handicap, as it makes us think by just going or attending we will have some benefit. Just like those who own gym memberships and go twice a month feel they are doing their part.
Having a split between secular space and sacred puts the emphasis on the location or building. It is where we must go to meet God and it is where we must bring others so they meet God. Ending this split doesn’t mean we should eliminate quiet places, or think we have to always go to a club in order to serve God. It means we can’t see specific places as having some kind of inherent grace giving. The Spirit moves everywhere and so we can find God anywhere, even if sharpening our eyes for this task means sometimes we have to find quiet places like Jesus did in the garden.
Good stuff guys. But once again when it comes to church (the ‘thing’ that we all deal with, that shapes us so indelibly) the medium proves to be the message. Cathedrals are great to look at, but the so powerfully reinforce dualistic spirituality. The ‘wow factor’ works against a whole of life perspective.
This discussion reminds me of a wonderful word I have come to really embrace about the reality of our life with God: expectancy. This in not “expectation” as in to have a certain thing is mind, without with we will be disappointed; but rather that we are to live in a state of “expectancy”–that in every activity and in every place and in every relationship there is a sense of knowing that God will, in fact, be there and interact–if we are paying attention.
Living with expectancy brings a kind of “shalom”, the knowing that all will be most well–regardless of the specific circumstances. It also ties somewhat with my other favorite concept: eucatastrophy. By definition, a moment of eucatastrophy is an unexpected turning from tragedy to triumph. But the more we know God (like the more we read Tolkien, who coined the word), the more we live in “expectancy” of God’s eucatastrophic lovingkindness. We don’t know what to expect, but we know it will be just what we need to continue “in Christ.”
This is, essentially, the life of faith rather than sight. And the life of faith must not be segmented or it is no “life” at all, but rather a “game.”
Expectancy brings the “wow” factor into every moment.
My wife talks about attending to your moment Peg. similar idea. Seize the day!
Matt and Alan, Thanks for reading and commenting on my comments about other comments…lots of comments going on, so many I am getting dizy!!
I understand the discussion and the rationale about the dualistic divide and how the Hebrew and Hellenistic side viewed creator and creation. My point is that most people operate under a more “mundane” mindset wherein that philosophical divide is not se clean. And the truth is, even though I know the arguments and read about and think about that stuff all the time, my life is much more mundane in reality than the extremes portrayed by the Hebraic and Hellenistic ideals.
At best, I think that people may unconciously live with a Hellenized view of Christianity rather than the Hebraic version, which is exactly what some of you have said. But I also think that the truth of the matter is that pointing out to people that they are living a more “Hellenistic” or “modern” version of Christianity and hence spirituality will elicit nothing more than stares and twists of the head like a puppy.
Point taken Gary. Life is far more fuzzy than theory.
This conversation seems similarily expressed by Frost in ‘Exiles’ as he attempts to redefine worship under the combined elements of Appreciation (admiration & respect), Adoration (public worship), Affection (to love, take delight in), and Subjection (obey & serve). It is a theological dance of whether secular life and sacred realities coexist in the same states.
Perhaps, more in question: If the sacred does indeed coexist with our “secular” lives; what is a proper response to which those lives can and should take without being specifically from the conditioned response of tradition or religous expectations?
I love Matt’s reflections on the Hebraic divide was between the Creator and the created… but there was also another divide in Jewish religious life… the clean and the unclean.
Abolished in the new covenant through the death of Christ in my understanding…
There’s another New Testament contrast though… darkness and light. It’s not about spaces, it’s about hearts…
Another thought to throw into the mix… I have been to places where I have sensed a presence of evil that I could almost touch. I have been to other places where the sense of the Holy Spirit is strong. (I’ve sensed both things about people and gatherings of people too… but I’m referring to physical places here.
What’s that about? Does that have anything to do with this conversation? Are there places of light and darkness?
I think the darkness and light metaphor is useful as one metaphor amongst many, but in coming out of an era of high dualism where, if anything, we’ve overused it to an extreme, we need to employ it with caution, lest we perpetuate contemporary imbalances, consciously or unconsciously.
People are so used to grouping different dualisms together, such that light, masculine, sun, good are grouped and contrasted against dark, feminine, moon, evil, as if they all go together. Its rejection of these dualisms that supercharges goddess spirituality / wicca amongst our female youth. In engaging goddess worshippers I have found it is essential to remember that God is Lord of all - day and night, male and female, sun and moon, and that these were all good.
So, to answer your question, I have experienced places where things were “darker”, but not places that were “dark” without qualification, where the light was completely absent. Because there is no place in creation where the Creator is not at work. And that includes cyberspace - even amongst Satanists - see for yourself sometime
Now there’s a challenge to move beyond the sacred into the profane!
Janet, your sensing of good and evil sounds very much like the spiritual gift of discernment. I’ve felt that too. There are indeed places that have evil about them and places that have a palpable presence of the Holy Spirit. However, these are often not divided according to our standards of sacred and secular. I get very strong feelings like that too and some of the strongest places I’ve felt this have been at churches. On the other hand I’ve felt the absolute wonderful renewal of the Spirit’s presence in random places that sort of surprise me.
So, I think there’s certainly a dynamic of good and evil that we can experience, some of us maybe more than others because of how the Spirit has wired us. But this dynamic isn’t according to the religious lines. That’s a big issue with me with older conceptions of sacred/secular. By coming up with lists of right places and wrong places people have completely abandoned the gift of discernment, and let their rules or their own version of the law be the deciding factor to enforce and promote.
And yeah, Matt, I totally agree there’s no where completely one or the other. The absence of God entirely means non-existence, especially if we consider some of the earliest mentions of the Holy Spirit in Genesis.
Oh, I need to clarify… some of the strongest feelings of darkness and evil I’ve felt have been at churches.
There that makes the paragraph more appropriately contrasty.
Howdy, all!
Patrick and Janet–I wonder a great deal about the “spiritual gift of discernment” especially when it finds its way into churches and “outs” people as “evil”…especially when I have been one of those “people”. I am going to be very interested to hear what Matt has to say about this, particularly.
And, Patrick, I too have been in church and had strong feelings of darkness and evil…just down the hall from great light and Holy Spirit power. Which does confirm somewhat Matt’s comment, eh?
I would love to have some discussion about this “gift” and who has it and whether it is a gift given by the Holy Spirit to some and not others, or whether it is often confused with wisdom (so, James 1
) that is provided to those who ask.
Too often this “gift” becomes “license”…and the spiritual outcomes can be catastrophic.
Dipping back down to practicalities, surely the best arena for creating the culture of sacred/secular integration is in the home and family setting. This is the most formative of our lives, and church can then be an overflow rather than a Sunday only activity.
Hence the Jewish success at permeating every moment of ordinary life with mitzvos? It is inculcated in children from infancy - you hand the 2 yr old a beaker of juice while singing a little of the appropriate brocha. It sounds mechanistic but it works. In a Christian setting, singing grace, singing and praying at home twice a day, kids can come and go freely no pressure, words of faith at the table - light and easy - no culture of fear, you create the environment as you go.
Blessings :0)
Thanks Alan…DARN THE HELLENISTS!!!
by the way, is it one “L” or two “L’s”??
I wonder a great deal about the “spiritual gift of discernment” especially when it finds its way into churches and “outs” people as “evil”…especially when I have been one of those “people”.
That’s known as spiritual abuse… perpetrated by those addicted to the power of the organisation / institution / group on dissidents who will cause others to question.
People are ALWAYS made in the image of God… even the most mentally disturbed or occultically emersed… so we can never out people as evil.
There is sometimes a place for spiritual discipline (it’s in the bible) but I think we must always come to that place very cautiously and with great reluctance… and always / only in the hope of restoration.
There’s messy legal issues involved with convicted paedophiles in institutional churches with lots of boundaries set in place… but I think we need to work on hospitality for everyone…
Ramble, ramble…
I’ve driven through forests and had a sudden sense that an area was a hotbed of occult practice and I needed to pray for that spot… without there being any physical “trigger” at all for “knowing” so. But I think God shows me things only occasionally… I don’t actually think spiritual discernment is my strong suit. I have a prayer partner who “sees” the spiritual dynamics at work all the time… it’s on a “need to know” basis for me I think.
As for gifting in spiritual discernment, unfortunately, I’ve seen people try to “discern” about certain things and they come up with something only to find out later they were completely off. I agree with Janet that if we are on a need to know basis, we should be content with that and let those in the body truly gifted with discernment discern in order to edify and build up the body as whole (which hopefully does not take the form of “outs”, but rather as restoration as Janet said).
Eleanor, from my limited understanding, I think the Celts also were big into the singing/prayer way of life that goes everywhere for everytime.
Many of their songs were excellent transmission devices of hard concepts (like the Trinity) and worked well for children and new spiritual children alike.
Getting more onto the main topic….
I think it’s really healthy to flag the question about how to form disciples who see God’s sovereignty over all of life, and don’t have a dualistic perspective on life.
But I think we need to handle these issues with a light touch… because “sacred spaces” and “sacred rituals” actually are helpful for a lot of people. It’s a bit like having a bedroom and a bedtime ritual… it’s possible to sleep anywhere, but most people find they’ll sleep more and better if they have a dedicated sleep space and time and ritual. You can exercise anywhere… but some people find that gym memberships help them exercise more and better.
And you can pray anywhere and in a whole lot of ways… but many people find a dedicated time and place for prayer is helpful for their spiritual growth more generally.
I would hope the emerging missional church comes more to be known for what it is for than what it is against… hopefully not hardline against chapels / religious art / church services / religious symbols / religious music etc. in our passion to see the Lordship of Christ over all of life… for many it’s a both / and not an either / or.
Yes, of course this can perpeptuate dualism… but provided we are aware of this and working to correct it I don’t think dedicated “religious space / activity” is all that bad…
Peggy
You’re opening up a huge conversation you realize. I don’t think we can do much more than scratch the surface in this sort of context, but, how we discern the Spirit and how we discern the spirits? That all ties in with missional pneumatology.
Some threads worth exploring:
1/ I have previously asserted on this blog that “much of what passes for spiritual warfare these days is better interpreted as undiagnosed culture shock.” When fellow Christians “discern” the demonic in cultural boundary crossers like us, what is really going on? When we can predict, with a high degree of accuracy, which Christian visitors to alternate spirituality festivals are most likely to experience “demonic” attacks, based purely on an assessment of how big a culture gap they have to traverse, what does this say? How much of this stuff they are going through is genuine discernment of spiritual realities and how much of it is unsubstantiated personal gnosis that says more about them than the culture? Can a deeper appreciation of cultural anthropology help us here?
2/ How “missional” is Charismatic pneumatology? Particularly when it often has the consequence of scaring people away from conversing with irreligious spirituality devotees? Should emerging missional Christians not question Charismatic pneumatology every bit as much as megachurch ecclesiology? Why don’t they? After all, don’t the two often go together? How modernist is Charismatic pneumatology? How dualistic is it? What might a more holistic Christian pneumatology look like?
3/ When its all said and done, what are the crucial differences between discernment and divination, clairvoyance and prophecy? Are the real differences where we think they are? Missiologists within the Lausanne group on spiritual warfare have raised concerns that many prominent spiritual warfare and deliverance ministry advocates are teaching practices that border on “Christian” shamanism. What might a more incarnation pneumatology look like, that engages divination practitioners, such as tarot readers, fung shui gurus, astrologers and the like, on their home turf, using their language, look like? Consider what “C4 contextualization” might look like in this context.
4/ With all the things outlined above, do we need a more missional theology of guidance?
5/ How come we failed to discern the demonic in our ranks so spectacularly in the lead up to the paedophilia scandals which rocked the church and destroyed our moral authority in the eyes of contemporary culture?
6/ How many Christians are aware that many of the charismata, such as speaking in tongues, occur in other religions and irreligious spirituality movements and are not unique to Christianity? How can we discern genuine movements of the Spirit? And genuine gifts of the Spirit? Personally I think Jonathan Edwards is an interesting lead – he spoke of the deeper “affections” being more guiding than surface “feelings”. Maybe we need to read 1 Corinthians again from an emerging missional perspective, and re-discover the wisdom it has for us about the fruit of the Spirit – faith, hope and love – being more accurate indicators of Spiritual growth than Spiritual gifts.
On a personal note, I was actually outed as a heretic TWICE the other day by discerning Christians. One taunting with calling my blog “journeySINbetween”, the other just posting an accusation elsewhere without even bothering to contact me for clarification or even read the article right through. Twice within a 24 hour period – that’s a new personal best for me! To their credit though they both recanted for various reasons in rapid succession, once realizing their mistake. But I find it disappointing that most of what passes for discernment these days is distinctly of the cartoonish black hat / white hat type. That is, it you are not being cute enough and using sufficient Christian jargon (white hat), you must be suspect. Conversely, if you do have the requisite quota of cuteness and jargon you must be safe (cough, cough, Bible Code). Got help those who mention goddess worshippers (black hat) without building a bonfire or consulting the Malleus Maleficarum first. This is why I have reservation about lightness and darkness metaphors, it plays too easily into the hands of black hat / white hat Christians, when we all know Lucifer can masquerade as an angel of light. The Spirit moves through sacred and secular. So does deception. Let us be agents who expose the hypocracies in both and commit to imagining the impossible, truth reigning everywhere.
Wow, Matt… more like a Pandora’s box than a can of worms…
Maybe Alan could sniff out someone at Fuller in a few weeks time who is looking for a doctorate topic… this would be a rip-snorter topic for anyone with an open mind!
I would love to dig deep into this topic sometime… but I’ve still got a lot of MDiv to plod through. Alas…
I’ve a lot of thoughts on discernment, more than can fit into a comment. But it’s like any spiritual gift. There are real gifts and there are spurious. It can be abused and faked. The person who genuinely has a gift from the Spirit, however, is humble in its use.
Here’s a good ol’ classic place to start on that topic. Though not the best translation, it is the most linkable.
Matt,
Yes, I knew the size of the conversation I was opening…and am grateful you waded it! Somewhere, sometime, I would love to unpack it thought by thought…
And I find that when I question those who believe they have a “gift” they frequently respond with suspicion and never get back to me…which is why I keep looking to have this conversation!!!
I have read widely in the Lausanne spiritual warefare group literature and look forward to the day when some answers to their questions come to light.
It is just so good to hear from another perspective.
Patrick,
Does that mean that the humble are the authentic ones? I don’t know about that. I will take a look at your classic place. Thanks for the link.
Not necessarily true the humble are the authentic ones, but without humility any gift can be used and abused. Discernment is very similar in flavor to prophecy. Defensiveness is generally a bad sign. Lack of control or lack of respect for others is as well.
Matt, your point number 6 is spot on. The fruit is how we can tell spiritual maturity. The gifts can be faked, abused by the immature, and artificially managed. That for me also ties back to the core point in this thread. The gifts are also not about Sunday morning or church hierarchy control. They are meant to help facilitate the broader work of the Spirit and help us to learn and focus in the ways that are most vital for Spiritual fruit in our communities.
Patrick, agree totally. Spiritual gifts are not just for special places, special times in special buildings. They are for God’s mission everywhere. I think a more missional pneumatology will be one that shifts the emphasis back to spiritual gifts in third place mission and spiritual fruit above all else.
Hearty Amen, here…and your #4, Matt, is important as well: we need a more missional theology of guidance!
And while we’re at it, we need a more missional theology of health/wellness along with the guidance…to see our way through the mazes of alternative and orthodox health options!
Here’s to Fruit of the Spirit Ambrosia served up with 1 Corinthians 13
Love…sprinkled with Faith and Hope….
That’s an interesting question…
I took my child along to an allergy therapy clinic yesterday based on acupuncture theory, following an enthusisastic review from someone else.
And… I’ve been doing a kind of therapy lately called the journey… which feels just like the kind of prayer / inner healing ministry some people were launching in the ’70’s and ’80’s.
I hang out with a few new-ageish kind of people so I’m quite comfortable with some alternative therapy stuff… I can’t really see why Wetern medical / psychological therapy (like asprin or counselling) would be any more biblically sanctified than eastern therapies (like acupuncture).
But I may be a total heretic, because I read an article in “Christian Woman” (don’t shoot me… my mother subscribes for me!!!!) called an A - Z of the New Age. Virtually everything listed was bad of course… with a couple of exceptions (eg under C… Chiropractic… Approach with care…. only see a CHRISTIAN chiropractor). (I personally thought it would be more important to see a competent and highly recommended one).
So… are all things sanctified if received with thanksgiving… or am I in the grip of the devil?
(as the Christian woman article might suggest)
Sorry… I know this is slightly off the topic… but I wonder whether Matt’s comments about people “perceiving the demonic” is more to do with unfamiliarity than genuine discernment? Might not a “primitive” person perceive the demonic in a television set because they do not understand it?
(Given most of the rubbish on TV, that might not be a bad call!!!)
Ah, Janet…you have waded into my puddle! The “evil” associated with some of these “new age” healing modalities is what did me in
I have been reading and thinking and looking for wisdom and discernment in this realm for almost five years now. Matt and Phil Johnson have been very helpful to me…but I still have many, many questions…and wounds.
It’s not really an either/or mentality, either, that I am struggling with. It is an issue of what should we really expect in regards to physical healing and health issues? I believe that much of orthodox/materialistic/pharmacologically based medicine is not healthy…that it frequently does not heal but, rather, suppresses and drives illness deeper and makes it more difficult to heal. Big topic here….
Matt could connect you with the links, probably, but I could try to retrace my steps, if you’re interested.
Those who were “perceiving the demonic” were the very ones known to have genuine gifts for discernment…but they did not gather all the facts. In many cases, we have a truth problem, which leads to another kind of “culture shock” altogether…
…still processing
I have seen a recurring pattern with Christians engaging with alternative health that goes something like this:
(1) Uncritical rejection - New alt. therapy appears of the scene. Seems alien (no Christian cuteness or Christian jargon in sight) so must be evil. May hear a preacher call it a “doorway to demonic possession” but even if that sounds extreme its best not to even look at it too close just in case. May also hear it denounced as “unscientific” by some Christians (as if that’s a valid apologetic argument) which puts the nail in the coffin (for now).
(2) Uncritical acceptance - Therapy ceases to be new and alien. Familiarity creep. May have a friend that practices it and, since they didn’t begin to levitate off the bed, spew vomit and have their head turn around 360 maybe it wasn’t as bad as they thought. Maybe give it a go. Maybe start to actively endorse it. May find some Christian repackages it by simply adding in cuteness and jargon they are all familiar with - ahhhh, breaths sign of relief. All ok now.
(3) Critical engagement - a precious few might eventually wonder, I wonder if I should take my Bible out and look at all this with open eyes, neither pre-judging or pre-accepting? They will probably be sniffed at by fellow believers for even considering such an odd stance. But, stubborn buggers that they are, they will probably keep digging and find their is a mixture of good and less so good stuff all mixed in together, and that (horrors) effort is actually required in discerning how to tackle the issue. They may eventually concluded some aspects of the practice are unbecoming of a Christian, but some are good, so the practice may be redeemed with some critical tweeking. Of course, this group will be in the distinct minority. You can see I am left a bit cynical
For an intro article that introduces some of the issues you might want to read members.optusnet.com.au/~stonelink/energy%20healing.doc
I have a good friend who takes her dog to an acupuncturist. I’m totally fine with the fact. Does this make me a bad Christian? A good Californian, yes of course. But a bad Christian? It did even occur to me to judge her. Maybe I should call her up and give her the what for.
Honestly, I think the line is where the power is attributed. When there’s a clear attribution to powers that are not God, then there’s a problem in my mind. The practices and techniques can be divorced from the alternative religions stuff, but it’s not often the case it is. So, a person can open themselves up to nasty influences if they’re not careful.
Thank you, Matt…this is exactly the article I was hoping you’d offer up!
Yes, that would be me with you there in group three…and I’m here with my sifter trying to discern. But so much of what some have to say just cannot be clearly discerned from any kind of reading of the Bible…there is much of their methodology and understanding that comes from somewhere else. And when you ask them just where they got that, then you learn that “it was revealed” to them. And I have more than a bit of a problem at that point.
Thank you, Alan, for letting us hijack your thread, yet again! Luv ya, mate
Patrick, you snuck in when I was replying to Matt! And with a great point: where does the power come from? And this is the true question. Where does the power come from? Just because someone says the power comes from somewhere, does that make it true? Big question…still looking for the answer.
The bigger question comes back to my original question about what is our “theology of health”. Does God want all his children to be free from all pain and illness? Is seeking any kind of medical help a lack of faith?
…still processing
…and, being a “stubborn bugger” I won’t be giving up any time soon!
I think ‘where does the power come from’ is a key question - sorry to butt in.
I’ve just spent two weeks with a group of people mainly into New Age, and it has been great - a very accepting and easy going crowd after the local church culture. From time to time their material came up while we trained together to lead workshops. In the course of listening and observing, occasionally sitting something out if it seemed questionable, I found a sort of crunch point in terms of asking what was driving something. If someone was handing round pictures of an Egyptian god and telling us to pray to him/her I stepped back and explained quietly if asked. If it came over more like a simple divination, I pondered that they were not doing anything different to reading an astrological prediction or attempting to read each other’s minds. I sensed openness and mystery in that, that they were reaching out in fact to God/Holy Spirit, as he only knows the answers, but they were not aware, and felt instead they were in touch with some mysterious power. If that isn’t a stage on the way to listening to God what is?
So I felt that my meeting point with them was in that area. I won’t go for divination of say, guidance for what to do, but I feel able to be with them talking about this and listening, because that is where we have that first common ground for exploration of what it is to listen to God.
I don’t have any problem with alternative medicine, though I bear in mind whether or not it has been proved to have some degree of success when tested scientifically, just as when offered conventional medicine I read the blurb and wonder what side effects are and what degree of success it has, and for both kinds of medicine who is making what kinds of money out of me? :0)
Blessings, E.
Your thoughts are welcome, Eleanor! Jump in
I will be interested on Matt’s take on your experiences with your training group–say, with divination and the range of what kind of thing is acceptable, and “who” they are really trying to communicate with.
The challenge with “whether or not it has been proved to have some degree of success when tested scientifically” is that some of these methodologies just do not fit with the current types of scientific testing. Does that mean they are not valid? I don’t think so. There is more to this process of discernment….
…still processing
I would hesitate to say that scientific testing has the final say, but it has for me a reasonably authoritative say, bearing in mind that research is simply the unfolding of more findings rather than any form of ultimate truth.
Mainly thanks to Alan and the discussions on these posts I have some landmarks now in the missional maze to try to find my way through it. I’m grateful to you all! *big smile*
Peg, I take everything on a case by case basis. No short cuts with option 3 :-). What was the group called?
Eleanor, one of the things to be wary of here is falling into split-level Christianity, whereby Christ remains the primary reference point for “upper level” issues such as salvation, nature of God, Sunday worship, etc, but drifts into the background for “excluded middle” issues such as healing, guidance, how to deal with a crisis. This is quite common in New Age circles and you may find there is subtle pressure to buy into it. There are some problems that are easily discerned, such as the praying to Egyptian gods and goddesses, but chances are there are other, more subtle, spiritual-theological time bombs lurking in there that only become evident with a much deeper look. To sus out what they could be I’d have to know the name of the specific group or course.
I agree they tend to be an easy going and accepting crowd, that’s where you can get caught off guard with option 2 as I mentioned above. Maybe, having experienced how they can sometimes be kinder than the people you find in church, you can imagine how much of a struggle it has been for me to survive in church when that is where I have come from. I still identify with them on a cultural level and find more communitas there than in most churches. I would love to see new expressions of Christianity birthed WITHIN such contexts, that start with the best that they have to offer then bring it to its fulfillment in Christ. But there are many challenges there and the first is unpacking all the issues.
Alternative medicine is a great example of some of the issues that bubble to the surface when the sacred and secular are allowed to interact again. It needs to happen, but the reintegration process is not easy.
Matt, that’s fascinating. I guess the listening involved in being with the group is about finding those deeper levels. Yoga is a good example of something where many Christians find they can go so far and no further. I’d definitely look back on having had a yoga phase, and a Buddhist phase in my time,almost becoming a Buddhist at one point (before deciding it was actually the food and peaceful atmosphere at the house I was enchanted with!)
The group I was with for three weeks was completely mixed, we were just people training together to lead workshops in whatever happened to be our area of expertise or passion. For some it was their New Age stuff, for myself mainly conflict transformation, though interestingly they suggested run one on St Francis, and another on lovingkindness in Christian spirituality. Hence we all experienced bits of each other’s workshops. The captivating experience I’m finding is that Jesus faith is so unknown to them as to be exotic in his own right. But you are right, we end up with a situation more familiar through accounts of missionaries returning from India. People are happy to adopt Jesus as well, but not the Triune God as the only reality.
What is interesting to me is how what is being discussed here is so entirely within the context of the earliest Christians. Then, of course, it wasn’t the New Age, it was just the Age.
I think of Paul’s visit to Athens, or Peter’s interaction with Simon the Magician. Early Christians were charged with atheism, because they rejected all the other gods. From what I can tell, the early centuries were pretty okay as far as missions.
So, it’s certainly a context the Christian faith can find its way in, maybe even a better context than seen in a good long while.
Sorry guys I have not been involved in this fascinating discussion. I reckon I should get Matt to blog this as an actual post. Matt, I’ve said it before, you are brilliant and the dialogue here is of the highest order. Thanks all.
Yes, yes, yes…this is a great discussion. Thanks for checking in on your blog, Hershie…we do try to keep things rolling
Matt, I’m not sure what “group” you’re talking about concerning me. My area of “interest” is in the area commonly known now as “energy medicine.” This term, interestingly, is being rethought, because it has been perceived to have been “corrupted”…a way for the “tainted” eastern mystical religions/philosophies (such as Qi Gong, Yoga, the various martial arts, Reiki, accupuncture, etc.) to be distanced from the emerging alternative (quantum physics, bio- and geo-magnetic, bio-resonance, ELF, holographic, etc.) more science-based (even if it is “edge science”) healing modalities. I would put homeopathy and aromatherapy and chiropractic, and NVD and applied knesiology and some kinds of Chinese medicine and accupuncture and allergy-elimination protocols (along with others, of course) in this latter category.
There is a well-known biophysics and biology PhD, James L. Oschmann, who has written two books that have been very helpful to me. Not being a science type, it is hard going…but I’m on my fourth reading (in as many years) of each of them, and I “get” more of it each time through! (And there is more of it leaking out in to the mainstream science, too!)
His first book, “Energy Medicine: The Scientific Basis”, was published in 2000, and the follow-up book, “Energy Medicine in Therapeutics and Human Performance”, in 2003 (both by Churchill Livingstone).
I would be very interested to see if Janet (aren’t you a biology girl?) and Matt have seen these or would be willing to look at them. And you, too, Eleanor. And any other open-minded, science-types out there. These books are the context from which I want to have this convervation…but none of the Christians who are writing the handbooks about how to discern what is good/bad in alternative medicine seem to have any of this research available to them. That’s what I get for being cutting edge….
But before the science, I think it would be so important to blog the theology of health/wellness issue first. The health/wellness industry is driving much of the “consumerism” (what, $80 billion a year, in the US?), and the stranglehold that insurance/HMOs and pharmacuticals have on so many, especially our elderly, is so tight (dare I use the “d” word here
)
So much of what drives this whole issue is the very fuzzy understanding of what is “normal” for Christians concerning preconceptions of physical sickness, health and healing and spiritual sickness, health and healing.
Now, I’m with you, Matt, in that every type 3 situation must be looked at individually–there is no magic pill, even in medicine! And I know this is a lot to ask of this group…but it is a core issue and I’m not one to be afraid to ask for help!
You brothers and sisters Rock!
Oops, Oschman has only one “n”
Interesting
We even touch medicine in this blog (but half of TFW is about biology so i guess it isn’t that surprising).
I don’t know any of these “science based” healing modalities, but beware of that science is often used as a means to give authority to something even if it has no basis in it, like f.ex. the Church of Scientology.
The only science in Scientology is in the name. http://www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/xenuleaf.htm
But that’s another topic entirely.:)
Actually maybe it was not a very good example because I do not know the signification of the name Scientology, maybe they use it for another reason than for making a link to science.
A better example might be eugenics before World War II, when doctors all over Europe measured the size of the skull to determine the persons intelligence etc.
Hey, Espen! You would be a great one to look at Dr. Oschman’s work…as you begin medical school.
I would love to see science begin to really “follow the truth” wherever it leads, even if it goes places that no one has ever thought related to science.
We are all “energy” — whether that energy is physical, mental or spiritual in essense: body/mind/spirit. It is when we try to break it down to the individual components and examine them separately that we have the real problems. Because that which is broken down into its components loses the spontaneous and emergent properties that come from the the integrated and alive whole.
This is the “difficult reintegration” to which Matt was referring, I believe.
The “science based” healing modalities of which I speak are attempting this very reintegration, which is why they call themselves “holistic” or “wholistic”. The challenge I am putting forth is for the people of God to actively engage in this process and lead with wisdom and discernment, rather than wring their hands in “culture shock”-based fear or exclude themselves because they are not “scientists.”
We’re back to Matt’s “Group #3″…and we’re looking to increase the size of this group
Anyone game?
Of course, “following the truth” requires that we have our motivations and methodologies hallowed by submitting them to God and his mission, rather than using them to usurp his place as Lord of All and “playing God”!
Maybe I will, in particular if this becomes an important issue for many people around me. Paris is full of artists so I guess that is probable
I will start by reading the article Matt referred to…
I confess I am sceptic to these healing modalities, especially those using scientific vocabulary. But I agree that too long biomedicine (western medicine) has viewed man only as a machine, and that integrating the other dimensions of a person (social setting, spirituality etc) in the process of healing is very important. I guess that was what you meant by holistic … ?
And I also completely agree that medicine (as most of the western world) is money driven, including a bit of what is often called church…
You will find Matt’s article challenging, Espen (in a good way
)
Being a skeptic is not a bad thing, eithe! The problem is that most people are not skeptical of the right things in the right ways. It should prompt proper thinking, not superstition or shallow, simplistic thinking.
Truth…that which is God’s…will stand up to the test.
And, yes, the holistic approach to health must take into consideration the entirety of the person. Many times “symptoms” are felt in places other than where the “root” problem lies….referred pain is one of those things that traditional medicine often is bewildered by.
Finally, my point about money and medicine is not so much that people make a lot of money in the field (although that is a concern…), but rather that so many people are spending all their resourcers chasing after “health”, whatever that is.
Without proper context for pain and suffering and patience and faith we will never arrive at proper context for nutrition and rest and exercise and restraint…and the appropriate time, place and modality of an intervention.
Many people spend it all on their bodies…when it is their souls that are sick and in need of the cure only Jesus, the Great Physician, offers.
And, yes, the church gets sucked into the money part of healing too…which is partly what drives my very persistent pursuit of the truth and the proper context.
Hey, that was a very interesting article. Thanks Matt–and Peggy for the challenge.
I do not think of alternative therapies as neccessarily demonic, as I’ve already said it is the use of scientific terms (as quantum mecanics, magnetism) that gives me the taste of charlatanry. But it might be something real that help healing and then it is given these names to make it fit into the average persons worldview (how many people really know what quantum mecanics or magnetism is?).
That it might be the Spirit of God is not automatically excluded to me but I need to get a better understanding of the nature of God and how he opereates in the world. Though in the article I really got the feeling we were talking about the Force in Star Wars
(which btw does not automatically exclude it either).
At university we actually talked about what is called the ideology of “perfect health” which is powerful in the west today (where it follows that a body with weaknesses is looked upon as garbage, foetus with even minor handicaps should not live etc).
My problem with money is all the agendas that (might) come with it–some actually earn their life (and more) on people being sick. In the church, it is more the dependance on money which makes me uneasy. To me TFW seems to be a good remede
Espen, you hit on an important one: some people earn their money on people being sick. This results, sometimes, in them not really being interested in finding cures….
I hope you will look into Dr. Oschman’s books. He is doing a great thing by gathering together the various arenas of science and showing how they are missing connections by their isolation.
The challenge has always been how the leading edge thinkers have those “flashes of brilliance” where they see something…but then they must search for words to describe it. Because their words have not always been clear or helpful does not mean that what they have understood is not correct–just that they are unable to explain it.
The unexplainable too often gets shoved into that “twilight zone” excluded middle area. We have got to reclaim the totality…especially now that we are beginning to have scientific tools that can measure “subtle energies” that have been thought to be “hocus pocus” or, worse, demonic.
Now you can understand why so many of here are really interested in understanding the nature of the Holy Spirit in a comprehensive way!
Good grief… I’ve been on holidays for a couple of weeks and this site has so much new stuff!!
Thanks for the link Matt… I think this clearly articulated what I sort of “felt in my bones” about alternative therapies and new age practices in general.
In relation to earning money out of sickness… I have no problem with doctors and nurses etc. earning a living… the big issue is the extent to which the pharmaceutical industry drives research and training within the medical sphere. Someone I know used to be on a panel to approve medical research and it was chronically biased toward drug therapy (rather than preventative medicine) because the pharamaceutical companies had so much money to fund it, and were also able to stack such panels.
I think God’s “normal” will is a long and relatively healthy lifespan, and scientific research has shown how the majority of people can achieve it… plenty of water, exercise, fresh fruit and vegetables and pulses and nuts and grains grown in mineral rich soils, avoiding toxins, love, manageable stress levels, adequate sleep, a balanced lifestyle (meaningful work, play, social contact, exercise, rest, spiritual / contemplative life).
In a fallen world there are genetic quirks that mean some people will get sick or be prone to certain illnesses… for example, there are people who will make excess cholesterol and will drop dead in their early 30’s without cholesterol lowering medication. However… such medication is given to people who might be better off changing their diet, their exercise levels, and their life stresses.
Anyway… I’m way behind in this discussion… have some catching up to do!
Welcome back, Janet! Hope your holiay was blessed!
There’s lots to catch up on at TFW!
Thank you Peggy… I don’t think I’ll ever catch up!
“proper context for pain and suffering and patience and faith”
My thoughts on this… I think there is a need to distinguish between short term and meaningful pain, and chronic pain…
We need short term pain physically to teach us not to stub our toes… or to keep a wounded area still while it’s healing… or to alert us of a problem that needs attention. That is helpful pain… a leprosy patient is slowly destroyed by an inability to feel meaningful pain.
Short and medium term psychological pain is also an invitation to healing… to seek prayer or counselling or psychotherapy to process unresolved anger or grief or trauma… the propensity to put people on antidepressants as a cure all without looking at the whole person is an unhealthy manifestation of the dominance of the pharmaceutical model of medicine. (although it can be life saving in the short term)
But I don’t think terrible longer term physical pain (when meaningless) is a good thing… God made the opium poppy for a reason!!!! I think people with terminal cancer should be kept relatively comfortable… ditto for chronic and untreatable back pain, and other untreatable painful conditions. It seems sadistic to deny people of relief from terrible pain when we know how to do so… this is a ministry of mercy.
Pschological pain… well, we know there are people who have biochemical, incurable causes for psychological pain… such as obsessive compulsive disorder… and medication can help relieve the torment such people endure… (which is almost never managed by psychotherapy alone.) I think medication in this case is God’s gift.
But I’m suspicious of pharmaceutical solutions for problems that are better fixed in holistic ways… as you’ve hinted Peggy, this can mask the root issues and block deeper healing and health.