Christianity relevant in a secular society?

[AzA]

So how do we determine whether something pertains to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred?

I don't. I don't perform the surgery.

 

[JonMiller]

Hasn't peoples perceptions always been at the heart of the matter?

I don't see how people can ignore them or ignore a classification scheme based on them.

JM

 

[AzA]

Hasn't peoples perceptions always been at the heart of the matter?

I don't see how people can ignore them or ignore a classification scheme based on them.

Some people can and do because the scheme and resultant perceptions are based on a highly dualistic view of the world. Not everyone's a dualist. And the culture of, say, Isaiah, was closer to monism than to the dualism held in contemporary evangelical circles.

One idea in a monist worldview is that the Creator has no competition, and so no other creature gets ascribed godlike powers or authority. The Creator retains complete authority over the entire domain, and there's nowhere that authority doesn't hold. In such a view there is no basis for contracting the Creator into one floor of the house and marking it off as sacred.

A similar idea in integrated spirituality is that the Creator is not divorced from creation. And so someone who started from a premise of integration would see no basis for cutting away aspects of creation and describing them as secular.

Those are two reasons why someone might not accept the sacred-secular division as commonly held. There are quite a few others.

 

[JonMiller]

But that isn't what we are discussing, although it might be an interesting area of discussion.

What we are discussing is the fact that the majority of the world does see a secular-sacred division and how Christianity is relevant in the aspects of the world which are perceived by the great majority of people as secular.

People's perceptions matter, and people is always what is important. If you ignore their perceptions, you are no longer in dialogue with them.

JM

 

[sentipente]

The word is founded in the ludis secularis - the Roman secular games. It had nothing to do with a distinction from the world to come. It referred to the current generation. It also was not anti-religious because they were established to honor the gods for saving a nobleman's (it could have been the Emperor) daughters. Secular means applicable to everyone or non-sectarian. That is its root and the only justified meaning. A good example is to try the question asked in #20. Incidentally, the opposite of sacred is profane, not secular. We have mangled the language.

 

[Avonia]

Part of this confusion stems from our insistence that we have to find the sacred - that it's somewhere else. Other than the "everywhere" in which we find ourselves.

Another part of this confusion is in our assignment of domain to the the satan. We have an urgency around understanding the satan's domain as "close to home" because we don't feel at home.

 

[Xenon]

Part of this confusion stems from our insistence that we have to find the sacred - that it's somewhere else. Other than the "everywhere" in which we find ourselves.

Matthew 19:17 says, ...there is none good but one, that is, God. While things in this world may have aspects of God's goodness, they all merely point to the one who is completely good. We might have aspects of God's goodness: love, compassion, honesty, and so on. However, without God in us, we cannot say that we have good in us because it is marred by our sin. Nature speaks of the power and glory of God, but it is still an incomplete revelation. The "good" aspects of nature only point to God and his perfect revelation in Jesus.

As for the topic, I'd say that God is completely relevant to a secular society. They just don't see the connection and suffer because of it. Show people the connection between the secular and God, and people will see how relevant God is.

 

[Joe67]

Christianity is not relevant to the majority of humanity. God did not purpose that all man would be brought into the prize of the high calling, the eternal purpose for Jesus and his followers.

The blessing of God will rest upon all man because of this purpose. Most will go about a secular life unaware of the source of their peace. Religious authoritarianism must need perish for the earth to be at peace. It will not give up its power without a rule or ruin manifestation. Then there will be peace.

These are pictures of thought through a smoky glass. I do not know specifically how God will bring this to pass.

Revelation 18 is a picture of "church" as we are ordinarily acquainted with it. The form must be consumed for the spirit of church to be resurrected as portrayed in Revelation 21 and 22; which is a prophecy of the spiritual reality. This is not a material absoluteness. Our eyes have not seen the manifestation of this spiritual reality. Sincere, innocent children have believed that the future life would have a material reality just like what is written, and they were without iniquity in this until they tried to make a church out of the pictures.

Joe

 

[AzA]

What we are discussing is the fact that the majority of the world does see a secular-sacred division and how Christianity is relevant in the aspects of the world which are perceived by the great majority of people as secular.

Do you realize that, numerically, the West is a minority population? The majority of the world is not Western, not Christian or monotheistic, and not burdened with the assumption that God is Other to creation.

People's perceptions matter, and people is always what is important. If you ignore their perceptions, you are no longer in dialogue with them.

I agree completely. This is one of the reasons why Christianity has had such a dark relationship with indigenous religions wherever missionaries have gone. Rarely do those missionaries go to learn.

 

[JonMiller]

Do you realize that, numerically, the West is a minority population? The majority of the world is not Western, not Christian or monotheistic, and not burdened with the assumption that God is Other to creation.

I agree completely. This is one of the reasons why Christianity has had such a dark relationship with indigenous religions wherever missionaries have gone. Rarely do those missionaries go to learn.

Christianity is the largest religion of the world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations

Islam is second, which is highly related.

And despite your thoughts on the matter, you will find that the other major religious groups see perceive similar divisions between spiritual and non-spiritual things. It is just that their religion is different than Christianity.

Finally, I there is nothing for me to learn about the physical universe from 99+% of the world, and 100% of indigenous cultures. While I will agree that religion is a much more complicated subject, I don't see why we should assume that there is much to be learned about God from them, particularly since He gave a special revelation to the Jews and through Christ.

And it isn't the missionaries place to learn. It is the theologians place to learn, and the anthropologists (before these primitive cultures all disappear), but not the missionaries. They are going to teach their religious knowledge, just like our nurses teach their health knowledge. There needs to be learning so as to be able to teach, but that is learning about perceptions and people, not learning (and accepting as true) new knowledge.

JM

 

[Avonia]

I don't see why we should assume that there is much to be learned about God from them, particularly since He gave a special revelation to the Jews and through Christ.

How much time have you spent in indigenous cultures? And with their teachers?

As much of my understanding about God has come from other religions, and especially indigenous peoples, as has come from Christianity.

Has it occurred to you that God may have sent ambassadors to other peoples?

The Bible records events that occurred in one small place on the planet. There were other interesting things going on all around the globe.

 

[AzA]

Christianity is the largest religion of the world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations

Islam is second, which is highly related.

And despite your thoughts on the matter, you will find that the other major religious groups see perceive similar divisions between spiritual and non-spiritual things. It is just that their religion is different than Christianity.

Finally, I there is nothing for me to learn about the physical universe from 99+% of the world, and 100% of indigenous cultures. While I will agree that religion is a much more complicated subject, I don't see why we should assume that there is much to be learned about God from them, particularly since He gave a special revelation to the Jews and through Christ.

And it isn't the missionaries place to learn. It is the theologians place to learn, and the anthropologists (before these primitive cultures all disappear), but not the missionaries. They are going to teach their religious knowledge, just like our nurses teach their health knowledge. There needs to be learning so as to be able to teach, but that is learning about perceptions and people, not learning (and accepting as true) new knowledge.

JM

Jon, I hope you see the difference between "the majority of the world is non-Christian" and "Christianity is the largest religion of the world."
According to the source you've referred to, 71.18-75.46% of the world is non-Christian.

There are many, many, many traditions which appreciate differences in form without also requiring a difference in substance or value. Western philosophy and the Christianity that has emerged from it find it very hard to do that -- as your comments show.

 

[JonMiller]

It is western science which dominates all areas of life.

Yeah, we are a bit arrogant (that is why most scientists don't believe in God). Still doesn't mean that our knowledge isn't the more valuable knowledge... it has produced results. This is in science, but our theologians also have much much longer time spent studying and developing theology then some native group where all that exists is oral tradition before the last 100 years.

The east and the west both have well developed cultures/knowledge/etc. Civilization has been ongoing, and keeping good records (which enables growth) for 1000s of years. Such is not the case in native cultures. They are useful to study for knowledge sake, to learn about them, not to learn from them.

JM

 

[JonMiller]

"The only people left who believe in God live in Monasteries now. The Western world stooped believing a long time ago, now they just believe in belief in God. By which I mean they feel that if they can go through their lives saying to themselves and everyone around them that they believe in god it makes them a better person. And by and large people are very good at making themselves say they believe, by shear force of will or 'leap of faith' if necessary.

But vanishingly few people do the things which would show real belief like giving up all their possessions and living in monasteries or even living lives one iota more virtuous then they otherwise would. Atheists are just the people who have realized that believing in belief you don't actually have is meaningless and hypocritical. This is why your seeing more and more cooperation among leaders of divergent faiths to collectively oppose atheists, the seemingly different faiths really all believe in the same thing (namely they believe in believing) and atheists above all believe that belief is a moral failing irrespective of the actual existence of a god. Thus atheists aren't simply 'non believers' they are in active diametric opposition to the core of what we now call religion."

This is some thoughts by an atheist. What do you think of it?

JM

 

[JonMiller]

As much of my understanding about God has come from other religions, and especially indigenous peoples, as has come from Christianity.

If you believe that the NT, which was mostly written in the 100 years after the events in question, is full of inaccuracies/etc due to oral tradition/etc, how much more so would any beliefs of indigenous people whose oral traditions we have seen change and develop in the last 100 years!?

We have the combined knowledge of over 2000 years of people studying and developing and dialoguing. Indigenous cultures don't have that. I would think you would favor that which has more development?

The eastern tradition is of similar age (although a lot of the important parts of it are newer than you think).

I agree, they have a lot to teach us religiously if God decided to give them great revelations during the last several hundred years. But surely then He would realize that Christianity (which is a spreading religion, unlike much of modern Judaism for example) would teach them and not the other way around and give the revelations to some Christian monks or something?

JM

 

[JonMiller]

You know, I strongly believe that Christianity has the most truth, otherwise I wouldn't be Christian.

But I consider myself somewhat liberal because I believe that God reaches people through other faith traditions/etc.

But being able to reach through other faith traditions or other faith traditions having some truth doesn't mean all is equal. All is explicitly not equal, this is a fundamental result of logic because they say different (and opposing!) things. If you must judge them all as equal, then you should be an atheist because to believe such is nonsense. It is true that there is a lot of complexity, but the response that post modernists follow of throwing out rationality is not the way.

If addressing post modernists is what you beleive is important to dialoguing with a secular society than I disagree with you. Post modernism has been falling out of favor in recent years as science has continued to dominate.

JM

 

[sentipente]

"The only people left who believe in God live in Monasteries now. The Western world stooped believing a long time ago, now they just believe in belief in God. By which I mean they feel that if they can go through their lives saying to themselves and everyone around them that they believe in god it makes them a better person. And by and large people are very good at making themselves say they believe, by shear force of will or 'leap of faith' if necessary.

But vanishingly few people do the things which would show real belief like giving up all their possessions and living in monasteries or even living lives one iota more virtuous then they otherwise would. Atheists are just the people who have realized that believing in belief you don't actually have is meaningless and hypocritical. This is why your seeing more and more cooperation among leaders of divergent faiths to collectively oppose atheists, the seemingly different faiths really all believe in the same thing (namely they believe in believing) and atheists above all believe that belief is a moral failing irrespective of the actual existence of a god. Thus atheists aren't simply 'non believers' they are in active diametric opposition to the core of what we now call religion."

This is some thoughts by an atheist. What do you think of it?

JM

He makes a lot of sense.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Hasn't peoples perceptions always been at the heart of the matter?

I don't see how people can ignore them or ignore a classification scheme based on them.

The SDA world is often black-and-white (as it is in certain other denominations as well). Things are good or bad, secular or religious, true or false, healthy or unhealthy, appropriate or inappropriate.

Although I do believe that God Himself, including all of His attributes, has always been and will always be, I note in Scripture that there is none who understands, not even one.

Therefore, I have accepted that one mark of spiritual maturity is an acceptance of "grey" on matters where there is not a clear direction. I am much less prone to divide the world into dualistic categories of "secular" and "religious." In doing so, I've noticed that there is immense cross-over between the two.

In allowing the "secular" and the "religious" to intermingle, I've found that I now have a world view that is far less segmented. My Christianity isn't reserved for one day out of seven. My hobbies and interests are limited to six days out of seven. My opportunities to "let my light shine" aren't limited to the church pews. My opportunities to build relationships with people are limitless. My life has become one cohesive whole (as God intended). When I enter a corporate worship experience, I bring with me everything that has transpired prior to that experience. When I enter the workforce, I bring with me everything that I experienced in corporate worship. All aspects of my life have become integrated.

It is for this reason that I am not a fan of the term "secular."

BFA

 

[JonMiller]

I always have this opinion BF1 that you are talking to yourself when you reply to me.

We all do this sometimes, but it generally means that I feel like my posts are constantly pointing out that you are completely ignoring what is being talked about.

And Senti, I think there is truth to his statement as well. I didn't ask if you agreed, I asked what you thought about such.

JM

 

[AzA]

The SDA world is often black-and-white (as it is in certain other denominations as well). Things are good or bad, secular or religious, true or false, healthy or unhealthy, appropriate or inappropriate.

Although I do believe that God Himself, including all of His attributes, has always been and will always be, I note in Scripture that there is none who understands, not even one.

Therefore, I have accepted that one mark of spiritual maturity is an acceptance of "grey" on matters where there is not a clear direction. I am much less prone to divide the world into dualistic categories of "secular" and "religious." In doing so, I've noticed that there is immense cross-over between the two.

In allowing the "secular" and the "religious" to intermingle, I've found that I now have a world view that is far less segmented. My Christianity isn't reserved for one day out of seven. My hobbies and interests are limited to six days out of seven. My opportunities to "let my light shine" aren't limited to the church pews. My opportunities to build relationships with people are limitless. My life has become one cohesive whole (as God intended). When I enter a corporate worship experience, I bring with me everything that has transpired prior to that experience. When I enter the workforce, I bring with me everything that I experienced in corporate worship. All aspects of my life have become integrated.

It is for this reason that I am not a fan of the term "secular."

Thanks for sharing your experience, BFA. I love that you're enjoying it! I've also found that an integrated approach allows me to be more present wherever I go.