I would respond, though, by challenging the idea that ‘if everything is sacred then nothing is.’ That is, I think we can stills say there’s a sense in which there are certain things set apart specially (Eucharist, Baptism)…and in that, my analysis is weak, admittedly….but I still want to hold on to the fact that all things are sacred; that is, as Paul says, ‘Whether you eat or drink, do it all to the glory of the Lord.’ 

So, for me, the issue is certainly doing away with the secular/sacred or sacred/mundane dichotomy, but that doesn’t mean I wish to do away with distinctives of each event, time, space or object. Taking a bath has sacred aspects to it if one is reflective enough and in tune with the Spirit enough – the shower is a place where we can meet with God, and thus is sacred.

But the shower is certainly qualitatively different than the Baptism waters or the Eucharist. These are specially set apart. They are sacred, but to a different degree and in a different way.

So, certainly, see the Eucharist and pre-fabricated prayer as specially sacred. I think I failed to communicate this clearly in my post. Unfortunately, in my attempt to uplift the mundane, I brought low that which was already sacred. I was wrong in this. But I thin kthere’s still a sense in which I can say everything is sacred.

Just some thoughts. What do you think?

Tom,

I have been thinking about this post for a couple of weeks now.  I find that I agree and disagree with you here.  You are spot on in terms of the value of creation and our acts within it, but might be missing the mark with the term sacred.  I define and use the term sacred in terms of its contrast with the profane/mundane.  As such, it is related to the term Holy, in that it denotes something that is set apart for a certain purpose over something else.  As such, if everything is sacred, then nothing is. 

I don’t want to deny the worth of all of creation, nor the worth of our reverent acts.  I agree with you that the Spirit is active and constantly engaged with creation and our mundane actions.  I submit that sacred actions are artificial but necessary for our communion with God.  We can walk or swim anywhere we wish, but cars, boats, and airplanes are wonderful aids in transportation.    It is the same with the creation of sacred places, times, and actions.  Yes, we may commune with God in any place, at any time, and through most any action, but setting aside certain ones can help us to focus our communion. 

As an example, consider prefabricated prayers.  As a composite baptist/church-of-christ, the idea of pre-written prayers smacks of artificial tradition and ritual.  I’d rather pray a living prayer than some dead series of mutterings from years past.  But, in reality, these pre-written prayers contain useful and wise patterns of communication with God and we even have an example from Christ in this matter.  It is artifical, but it can be benefical as well.

In sum, there is a great value to your post here, but I just wanna add a small footnote.

Now…

I think what Miles appreaciates about my post is really the heart of what I wanted to get at – whether I communicated it well or not. So, thank you for your kind words, Miles.
Hank, I kind of felt like I had been answering a lot of ‘why’ quesitons in the previous post. And not that that question isn’t important here, but I kind of really wanted to get to the pastoral ‘what’…if that makes any sense. My bit about the Spirit in creation I think begins to get at the ‘why’ – and as far as that bit goes, I actually plan on writing a (series of posts?) post on that matter. I hope it will engage your quesitons a little more.
As for faith in Romans 14 – I don’t disagree with you. However, it seems like to me that Paul always assumes the presence/activity of the Spirit when he speaks of faith. So, when he speaks of Christian freedom in Romans 14, I believe he is operating on the assumption that his believers understand that he has permeated all of Romans will the Spirit (indeed, right from the opening paragraph!).

I don’t think any of this is ‘counter’ what you’ve written, I just thought I’d add why I felt I could reference Romans 14 with the assumption of the Spirit.

Good thoughts, man. Let me know what you think of my response.

So it is with the Spirit. The Spirit does not always and only need our great missionary allegiance. The Spirit wants us to be faithful in all our little tasks. Our excellence and present-ness in all things mundane turn those things, places, and people into sacraments – means by which we encounter the living God through physical realities. It is here that something “as ordinary as a sleeping child, as simple and objective as a flower, suddenly commands attention.” And it does so because the presence of the Spirit.

I think i wish you would have addressed the issue of “why” in this post rather than just “what.” So much of what is said in this post Paul makes a similar case for in Romans 14 and yet the Holy Spirit is missing in Paul’s argument, he emphasizes faith. I hope that you will come back and try to show why its the presence of the Spirit that makes these mundane things sacred. It could also just be the way my mind is wired and I have to always ask the “why” question.

PS: Paul actually doesn’t say that we aren’t to just observe one day in Romans 14:5-6 but that if a person is convinced in his/her own mind of that one day and observes it in honor of Jesus, then s/he hasn’t sinned. Wednesday my Pastor preached on the topic of Sabbath.