# The myth of the secular



## jwright82 (Apr 9, 2010)

There are, it seems to me, at least 2 general views of the secular within the Reformed camp. One sees the secular as a more or less nuetral zone that would involve things that are not explicitly religous. The other view is that the secular is essentially a myth and that there is no nuetral zone religously speaking. 

Now my own point of view is the second one but I wanted to open up a discussion on this to see where other people sat with regards to this question. Also if you have an alternative to those two positions feel free to share. I want to see the gambit of positions out there and the arguments for or against those positions.


----------



## Skyler (Apr 9, 2010)

With reference to what?

Are you talking about art, business, music, government...?


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 9, 2010)

Skyler said:


> With reference to what?
> 
> Are you talking about art, business, music, government...?



The idea of the secular, as I understand it, is the theory that the broader culture is in some way nonreligous. This is of course one aspect of the definition but it is this aspect that I am refering to. So this is not the same as culture but is a theory of the nature of culture. 

There are those who feel that the nature of the culture is secular and the argument than becomes whether or not religous ideas belong in this nuetral sphere of culture. Also you see the argument for or against religous reasons in decisions regarding wordly or civil or secular matters (this would be like voting against gay marraige on religous grounds). Plenty of Christians hold to this view and they either argue for the inclusion or against the inclusion of religous ideas in the secular sphere. 

On a different level there are those like myself who do not argue whether or not religous ideas belong in the secular sphere but argue the secularism is a myth itself. There is no religously nuetral sphere. We feel that the nature of culture, like everything else, is inherently religous in its most basic level. The culture has its gods and its liturgies just like the Church has its. These compete on some level because they are both religous in nature. So we would argue for the inclusion of religous ideas in the public sphere, notice I did not say secular but public, on the grounds that all points of views in the public realm are themselves religous. In short we argue that we can do it because everyone else is doing it. 
One quick note on my distinction between the secular and the public. As I said the secular sphere is a theory about culture and the public sphere is where all ideas exsist and get tossed around. So the public realm is where the interaction of ideas takes place and the secular would be a theory of the nature of these ideas and a standerd of which ones can come to the party you could say.


----------



## theydonman (Apr 9, 2010)

I believe the modern secular realm although denying any religious belief really does worship at the feet of political correctness and evoluitionary thought.


----------



## Skyler (Apr 9, 2010)

So you're talking about Christianity transforming vs. transcending culture, then?

I have one question. Does that include cooking? What effect does Christianity have on the food of a particular culture?


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 9, 2010)

theydonman said:


> I believe the modern secular realm although denying any religious belief really does worship at the feet of political correctness and evoluitionary thought.


 My sentimants exactlly. That is their god, this point of view goes al the way back to Saint Augustine.

---------- Post added at 01:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 PM ----------




> So you're talking about Christianity transforming vs. transcending culture, then?


In a sense yes but this is not exclusivly a view on Christ and Culture it is on the nature of culture itself. Those two view points, which even though I am critical of the first I tried to represent fairly (if I didn't than let me know), represent the 2 major aproechs to dealing with the secular theory of culture. Either point of view could be held, I think, across the gambit of views involving Christ and culture, although some are deffinantly better suited for some vs. others.



> I have one question. Does that include cooking? What effect does Christianity have on the food of a particular culture?


Good questions I will try to answer them fairly from both perspectives. The first view would probally say that cooking is a nuetral thing that we humans do. They would point out that there seems to be nothing inherently religous about cooking. Also we live in the new covenant and we can eat what we want, thus inplying a sort of nuetrality or goodness in this realm. They would probally say that in all cases except like cooking foods for pagan religous reasons there again is no inherently religous thing about cooking so there would not have to be any affect on the cooking of a culture.

The second view, that I hold to, would say that everything is done religously. That is to say that we are religous creatures in our very being, or mode of being you could say. Everything we do (haircuts, eating, shopping, etc...) is done for some religous reason, either glorifying God or glorifying something else. This view would say that every cook is cooking to enjoy God's creation and culinary laws (the Christian) or for some nonchristian reason and therefore is engaging in idolatry. Whether or not the cooking of a culture would be affected by Christianity or not, this view is somewhat in agreement with the first, there would be no change in the actual cooking of a culture. The reason why the person was cooking would be different, enjoying God's creation and culinary laws (their motivation would change).


----------



## JennyG (Apr 9, 2010)

I think you're absolutely correct that there is no neutral zone, and also (as theydonman says) political correctness and evolution are both elevated to be gods (except in name).
It's interesting that humanists originally were much less shy about calling their world-view religious - I have a feeling the first Humanist Manifesto explicitly used that terminology. They backpedalled after they grasped the advantages of posing as the people whose view represented pure reason, uninfluenced by any belief system. But as you say, it's nonsense to think that's even possible


----------



## Philip (Apr 9, 2010)

First, what exactly do you mean by "religious" here? You seem to be using a definition different from the Biblical one.

Also, show me exactly how a Christian and a non-Christian who go to the same barber, get the same haircut, are going to be different in their motivations _necessarily_.

Why did I get the haircut I got? Easy, I like it that way.


----------



## Skyler (Apr 9, 2010)

jwright82 said:


> > I have one question. Does that include cooking? What effect does Christianity have on the food of a particular culture?
> 
> 
> Good questions I will try to answer them fairly from both perspectives. The first view would probally say that cooking is a nuetral thing that we humans do. They would point out that there seems to be nothing inherently religous about cooking. Also we live in the new covenant and we can eat what we want, thus inplying a sort of nuetrality or goodness in this realm. They would probally say that in all cases except like cooking foods for pagan religous reasons there again is no inherently religous thing about cooking so there would not have to be any affect on the cooking of a culture.
> ...


 
I wouldn't say that has to do with culture so much as with the motives of the person--two different things, in my opinion. Many things of the culture, such as the cooking, won't be outwardly different between the Christian and the non-Christian. This doesn't mean that doing such things is "amoral", since all things are to be done to the glory of God (including food!). But the things themselves (the baking, the art, etc.) are amoral, in the sense that they are not inherently right or wrong. It's not wrong to be a poor artist or a poor chef (fortunately!). But no matter how good of an artist you may be, if you're not doing it for the glory of God, you're "doin' it wrong", to quote a popular Internet maxim.


----------



## jwithnell (Apr 9, 2010)

C. Van Til writes that we are either engaging in the creation as covenant keepers or we are engaging the creation as covenant breakers. Some of the outworkings might appear the same (2+2=4) but the foundation from which people are thinking or working is radically different.

In your cooking example, I don't pat myself on the back and say, I worked really hard to buy this food. I acknowledge that it is from God's hand. When I see dough rising, I don't reduce it to a simple bio-chemical reaction that evolved over time, but a process using amazing organisms created by God. When I think about who might share that food, I don't invoke "Every man's home is his castle," but I think about being hospitable or perhaps taking a dish to someone where there's illness in the home. The physics of cooking the food appear the same, but the foundation for doing so is completely different. So no, there is no neutrality.


----------



## Skyler (Apr 9, 2010)

In summary of my position:

Yes, there is neutrality, when looking solely at the actions themselves (i.e., baking, drawing) out of the context of the person(s) doing them. (I believe that _some_ actions _are_ inherently wrong, independent of the motive. For example, lying. Others would disagree.)

No, the actions are not neutral when actually performed, since the morality of an action includes not only the inherent morality of the action (which may be neutral) but also the person's motives (which never are).


----------



## Philip (Apr 9, 2010)

Secular: those realms of life which, for all practical purposes, are shared between Christian and non-Christian.

Also, I can think of very few actions which are categorically wrong, that is to say that there are absolutely no circumstances under which they would be justified.


----------



## Skyler (Apr 9, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Also, I can think of very few actions which are categorically wrong, that is to say that there are absolutely no circumstances under which they would be justified.


 
I've been reconsidering my position on that recently, but I don't know that I'll be able to do an in-depth enough study to say one way or the other for a while. We'll see.


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 9, 2010)

> First, what exactly do you mean by "religious" here? You seem to be using a definition different from the Biblical one.


I don't see how it is different from a Biblical one, Total depravity is just that total. My definition would, I admit, define religous in very broad terms but it is the acts we preform more or less in Church (worship, liturgy, etc..). This is such a complex issue that it can only be defined broadly. My point of view has a rich history in the Reformed faith going back to Augustine (see James K. A. Smith's book Introducing Radical Orthodoxy, which is basically the same as mine opinion in this matter). 



> Also, show me exactly how a Christian and a non-Christian who go to the same barber, get the same haircut, are going to be different in their motivations necessarily.
> 
> Why did I get the haircut I got? Easy, I like it that way.


The irony here is that your position it seems rests on a faculty type psychology in which you can uneccessarally seperate the different falculties of a person in practice. This is one major problem for anytype of faculty psychology because in practice our different faculties all work together in a unified fashion. Also there is no way, in principle, to prove faculty psychology (you couldn't disect someone to find these different faculties).

---------- Post added at 08:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:58 PM ----------




Skyler said:


> In summary of my position:
> 
> Yes, there is neutrality, when looking solely at the actions themselves (i.e., baking, drawing) out of the context of the person(s) doing them. (I believe that _some_ actions _are_ inherently wrong, independent of the motive. For example, lying. Others would disagree.)
> 
> No, the actions are not neutral when actually performed, since the morality of an action includes not only the inherent morality of the action (which may be neutral) but also the person's motives (which never are).


 We agree on much than. My point in the OP is taking the common theory of the nature of culture, I label secularism, is viewed two different positions. My position calls into question the so called nuetrality of the nature of culture. Another way to say this is this way. Biased people make up culture, so it like everything else it is biased too.


----------



## MW (Apr 9, 2010)

jwright82 said:


> Also if you have an alternative to those two positions feel free to share.


 
Everything is religious in nature because God is Lord of everything. Nevertheless, there is a valid secular-sacred distinction because God is Lord of everything in different ways -- in some ways immediately (the sacred) and in some ways mediately (the secular). The Bible is a sacred book. The ministry of the Word is a sacred calling. The church is a sacred institution. The Sabbath is a sacred day. Acts of worship are sacred acts. On the other hand, the literature of men is literature of "the world." Earthly work, as much as it is a fulfilment of the creation mandate, is work which cares for the earth. The six days of the working week are given to man for fulfilling his earthly responsibilities. Service performed in honour and for the benefit of man is a secular act. Given these clear distinctions it is necessary to maintain a clear difference between the secular and sacred realms so as to be able to discern what belongs more immediately to God and what belongs to God mediately through man and the world. Psalm 115:16, "The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD’S: but the earth hath he given to the children of men."


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 9, 2010)

> Secular: those realms of life which, for all practical purposes, are shared between Christian and non-Christian.


This is one definition of Secular, the deception here is that it collapses culture with the public sphere absolutly. This is to say that according to them you cannot think about the public sphere in anyother way. People who agree with me call this collapsing into question. We criticize the attempts to force everyone to fall in line with the secular as the only fair point of view to have. The line of despair here, to borrow from Schaeffer's termonology a bit, is this movement:
1. First everyone accepts this notion of a religously nuetral space we call the secular realm.
2. Next religous beleifs are subjected to more rational scrutiny than many of our other beleifs, that are regarded as safe. Our religous beleifs must be shown to be worthy of entrance into the secular realm.
3. Finally it is realized that to allow religous ideas into our safe nuetral secular zone is to contradict the notion of the secular (a nuetral realm without bias). Therefore it becomes the moral thing to do to force religion to exsist in the privacy of ones own home.

This is the timeline that I feel becomes inevitable because the truth the whole time is this: secularism is a myth. There is no nuetral space that exsists in the culture.

---------- Post added at 08:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:17 PM ----------




armourbearer said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> > Also if you have an alternative to those two positions feel free to share.
> ...


 I agree with you here. But the distinction you are making is on a more practical level not the theoretical distinction I am making. It is fine and well to practically divide the work week or the world into to two different realms that we label the Church (sacred) and the world (secular). But that is just where the problem is theoretically secularists are smuggling different religously biased notions into the discussion that have massive practical consequences, the UN is considering to open a religous department to deal with religous conflicts of anykind in the world. In fact one of the major archetects of this secular movment feels that if any fundementalists (which he defines as anyone who beleives their religion to the only correct view) won't except the notion that other religions are just as valid as anyother they will have to be "dealt with", whatever that means.


----------



## MW (Apr 9, 2010)

jwright82 said:


> I agree with you here. But the distinction you are making is on a more practical level not the theoretical distinction I am making. It is fine and well to practically divide the work week or the world into to two different realms that we label the Church (sacred) and the world (secular). But that is just where the problem is theoretically secularists are smuggling different religously biased notions into the discussion that have massive practical consequences, the UN is considering to open a religous department to deal with religous conflicts of anykind in the world. In fact one of the major archetects of this secular movment feels that if any fundementalists (which he defines as anyone who beleives their religion to the only correct view) won't except the notion that other religions are just as valid as anyother they will have to be "dealt with", whatever that means.


 
The New Testament manifests a proselytising spirit. It recognises the need for Christians to "live with" diverse cultural forms as a result of different beliefs, e.g., 1 Corinthians 8-10. We as Christians are bound to accept the present age as one in which righteousness does not perfectly manifest itself on earth. The proselytising spirit of the church will always regard "other religions" as valid in the sense that they witness to the depravity of man and the need for the divine Messiah.


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 9, 2010)

Skyler said:


> In summary of my position:
> 
> Yes, there is neutrality, when looking solely at the actions themselves (i.e., baking, drawing) out of the context of the person(s) doing them. (I believe that _some_ actions _are_ inherently wrong, independent of the motive. For example, lying. Others would disagree.)
> 
> No, the actions are not neutral when actually performed, since the morality of an action includes not only the inherent morality of the action (which may be neutral) but also the person's motives (which never are).



Yes. And it's inherently wrong to be an unbeliever. Although we are only saved by grace.

Of course it's also inherently wrong to be a sinner, and we are still sinners, in God's providence.

Are there adiaphora? You like vanilla ice cream and I like chocolate. Is God concerned with this? Obviously not. But the Christian even in his more backslidden moments will have some thanks to the true God in his heart for the ice cream, whereas the non-Christian will not. So even eating and drinking can be sanctified, although sometimes in a less obvious way than other times.

The issue of gluttony and self-control regarding food e.g., moves more out of the adiaphora, and into the realm of where the Bible has explicit things to say.


----------



## Philip (Apr 10, 2010)

> I don't see how it is different from a Biblical one



Religion, in Scripture, is defined as charitable acts.



> The irony here is that your position it seems rests on a faculty type psychology in which you can uneccessarally seperate the different falculties of a person in practice.



I would say I make distinctions. I'm not denying that our faculties are co-dependent or that they often work together, just that they are all present in every decision. I don't think that deciding what kind of toppings I want on my burger is a religious decision, unless you want to go back and talk about it in such a broad sense that the decision itself is no longer in sight. Most of our daily decisions are made in this fashion--we might be able to reason back to God or autonomy in an ultimate sense, but by the time we get there, the decision itself is of negligible importance.



> This is one definition of Secular, the deception here is that it collapses culture with the public sphere absolutly.



You are reading this into the definition I provided. Nowhere did I say that Christians are not to have a voice in the secular realm--that's a false inference. Of course I think that there should be inherently Christian elements in the culturo/public sphere. I also think that in this realm, we may argue with other points of view, we just can't silence them, and at times we have to work with them. Remember that Christians have to work for the good of the city of man, even though it is not the ultimate goal.



> 1. First everyone accepts this notion of a religously nuetral space we call the secular realm.



Neutral only in the sense that an open marketplace is a neutral ground for business. Neutral only in the sense that Central Park is neutral. Neutral in the sense that everyone, no matter how offensive their view, has a voice.



> 2. Next religous beleifs are subjected to more rational scrutiny than many of our other beleifs, that are regarded as safe. Our religous beleifs must be shown to be worthy of entrance into the secular realm.



No disagreement here. This is Alvin Plantinga's argument in _Warranted Christian Belief_.



> 3. Finally it is realized that to allow religous ideas into our safe nuetral secular zone is to contradict the notion of the secular (a nuetral realm without bias). Therefore it becomes the moral thing to do to force religion to exsist in the privacy of ones own home.



No disagreement here either. I think society ought to allow people of faith to express their differences in public settings. I wish more people (both Christians and non-Christians) would read Chesterton's _The Ball and the Cross_, which is an excellent critique of this idea in novel form.



> This is the timeline that I feel becomes inevitable because the truth the whole time is this: secularism is a myth. There is no nuetral space that exsists in the culture.



It all depends on what you mean by neutral. Neutral space, as a sociological term, means something different than the military idea that you have in mind. All that neutrality means here is a space that is not the exclusive forum of one particular viewpoint. For example, Carnegie Hall is neutral space: Christians and non-Christians alike have been allowed to speak there. The problem is that now our culture is saying that this should be dead or non-controversial space--which rules out neutrality in this sense.


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 10, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with you here. But the distinction you are making is on a more practical level not the theoretical distinction I am making. It is fine and well to practically divide the work week or the world into to two different realms that we label the Church (sacred) and the world (secular). But that is just where the problem is theoretically secularists are smuggling different religously biased notions into the discussion that have massive practical consequences, the UN is considering to open a religous department to deal with religous conflicts of anykind in the world. In fact one of the major archetects of this secular movment feels that if any fundementalists (which he defines as anyone who beleives their religion to the only correct view) won't except the notion that other religions are just as valid as anyother they will have to be "dealt with", whatever that means.
> ...


 
The question I posed was one about a certian theory of culture not the question of Christ and culture. This theory is assumed to be a nuetral space religously speaking, this is a theory of culture not a relationship to culture.

---------- Post added at 11:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 AM ----------




> Religion, in Scripture, is defined as charitable acts.


Where is this defined in scripture? Is this the sole definition used or is this a specialized meaning of the word?



> I would say I make distinctions. I'm not denying that our faculties are co-dependent or that they often work together, just that they are all present in every decision. I don't think that deciding what kind of toppings I want on my burger is a religious decision, unless you want to go back and talk about it in such a broad sense that the decision itself is no longer in sight. Most of our daily decisions are made in this fashion--we might be able to reason back to God or autonomy in an ultimate sense, but by the time we get there, the decision itself is of negligible importance.


You are still seperating them in practice. Yes you are absolutly one hundred % correct that something like eating or sleeping or shaving is not religous at all but since we cannot bifuricate people, in theory or practice, your distinction seems to be irrelivant. The whole of a person does something not a piece. So distinctions are fine and dandy but if you take them too far than you are bifuricating human beings.



> You are reading this into the definition I provided. Nowhere did I say that Christians are not to have a voice in the secular realm--that's a false inference. Of course I think that there should be inherently Christian elements in the culturo/public sphere. I also think that in this realm, we may argue with other points of view, we just can't silence them, and at times we have to work with them. Remember that Christians have to work for the good of the city of man, even though it is not the ultimate goal.


You seem to be refering here to the question of Christ and culture. The question that I posed was over the modern theory of the nature of culture itself, namely secularism. Plantinga and Wolterstorf both agree with me on this, so I have read in Smith's book I mentioned. The question of Christ and culture is different from the question I posed. 



> Neutral only in the sense that an open marketplace is a neutral ground for business. Neutral only in the sense that Central Park is neutral. Neutral in the sense that everyone, no matter how offensive their view, has a voice.


If we are robots than your point would be well taken, we are not though. Again you cannot simply rip a concrete example out of the context and abstract it to the point of asking whether or not this thing in its very essence is religous, of course its not but such abstract entities do not not exsist in the concrete world. Every example by itself you gave isn't religous in its very essence but when you bring in the human elemant it changes it all. We have been created to be religous creatures. The creation mandate is from a certian point of view a religous act. The market place in and of itself is not a religous thing but individual examples of the market place do take on the same elements of religion in general. Look at the idealized examples of beautywe are supposed to worship in our culture. 



> It all depends on what you mean by neutral. Neutral space, as a sociological term, means something different than the military idea that you have in mind. All that neutrality means here is a space that is not the exclusive forum of one particular viewpoint. For example, Carnegie Hall is neutral space: Christians and non-Christians alike have been allowed to speak there. The problem is that now our culture is saying that this should be dead or non-controversial space--which rules out neutrality in this sense.


You seem to be working within the question of Christ and culture here, in the beggining at least. The last part we would be in agreement with eachother. I am asking a different question from Christ and culture.


----------



## tommyb (Apr 10, 2010)

theydonman said:


> I believe the modern secular realm although denying any religious belief really does worship at the feet of political correctness and evoluitionary thought.


Which is just worshipping the creation instead of the creator. All "neutrality" is just a means of worshipping the creature. Ultimately we are either worshipping God or worshipping ourselves. ("when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God..."


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 10, 2010)

Here is an excerpt from a book I really want to get. It is James K. A. Smith's last book. But it is right along the lines of what I am talking about. He gives a wonderful description of viewing the culture around us as an alternative religion, so to speak.
Desiring the Kingdom EXCERPT | Media Manager | Baker Academic: A Division of Baker Publishing Group


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 10, 2010)

Here is a great interview with Nicholas Wolterstorff in which he criticizes secularism as well. He and I may not be in complete agreement but we are roughly sailing in the same direction.
[video=youtube;SjEjGEG9liY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjEjGEG9liY[/video]


----------



## jwithnell (Apr 10, 2010)

The distinction, or space if you will, needs to come between the creator and creation. God tells us that he created the world, that it is good, and told us to gain dominion over it (a task all but impossible given the fall, but still binding on us as various repetitions later show). A distinction _within_ human endeavor leads to the uncoupling of the "religious" from everything else, a position that has created a train wreck within western philosophy.


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 10, 2010)

Liberal secular humanistic democracy is going to be another Enlightenment car crash like communism and fascism.

Too much faith in godless Man, with his finite, fallible and fallen mind.

Christianity of the biblical kind is the wave of the present and future.

---------- Post added at 12:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:08 AM ----------




jwithnell said:


> The distinction, or space if you will, needs to come between the creator and creation. God tells us that he created the world, that it is good, and told us to gain dominion over it (a task all but impossible given the fall, but still binding on us as various repetitions later show). A distinction _within_ human endeavor leads to the uncoupling of the "religious" from everything else, a position that has created a train wreck within western philosophy.



I don't know how impossible the cultural/creation mandate is now. The Lord indicated that the fact that the Israelites' conquest of the Land would happen slowly was to allow time for the creation mandate to take place (see Ex. 23:29 -30; Deut 7:22) It was over 400 years between their entrance into the Land and Solomon's reign over the whole territory, wasn't it?

The Second Advent will certainly have to occur to complete the Creation/Cultural mandate(?)

Something similar could be happening with our full conquest of the Globe being delayed for 2,000 years. Also to blame is the unbelief of the Jews and the apostasy of the Church to Rome, Greek Catholicism and Liberalism. See Acts 3:19.

But " all things" will be restored by "Elijah" before Christ's Second Advent. Matthew 17:10-12; Mark 9:11-13. Who is the Elias/Elijah that prepares the way for the Second Advent by "restoring all things" as it says in the Prophets? Is it the Church? Converted Jews?

Shurely shomething for another thread!


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 11, 2010)

I just wanted to clarify something about this question before I went to church. The question of Christ and culture is a simerliar one to this but the question I am posing is sort of a logical step before this one. Anyone could agree with me about the nature of secularism itself but than turn around and disagree with how we aproech it now, which is at least in my understanding the question of Christ and culture.


----------



## Philip (Apr 11, 2010)

> You are still seperating them in practice. Yes you are absolutly one hundred % correct that something like eating or sleeping or shaving is not religous at all but since we cannot bifuricate people, in theory or practice, your distinction seems to be irrelivant. The whole of a person does something not a piece. So distinctions are fine and dandy but if you take them too far than you are bifuricating human beings.



My point is that most of our decisions are of so little religious importance that to call them "religious" is to make the statement either a) tautologous (and of no practical use) b) meaningless.

If we are to say that all decisions are religiously motivated, we need to have a really broad definition of motivation. We may say that my decision to wear a red tie this morning was religiously motivated--but only in an indirect ultimate attitudinal sense that has little bearing on the decision itself. My direct motivations for wearing a red tie over a green one might have been exactly the same regardless of my religious convictions. What connection there is, is indirect.



> You seem to be refering here to the question of Christ and culture. The question that I posed was over the modern theory of the nature of culture itself, namely secularism.



Then you are about ten years behind the times. The currently dominant theory is pluralism, not secularism.



> If we are robots than your point would be well taken, we are not though. Again you cannot simply rip a concrete example out of the context and abstract it to the point of asking whether or not this thing in its very essence is religous



And you cannot rip an abstract "motive" out of its everyday ordinary context, abstract it, and call it the absolute unifying principle of everything. We can say certainly that every decision _ought_ to be essentially religious. But to say that all decisions _are_ essentially religious is to take the word "religious" out of its ordinary usage and context and make it almost meaningless.



> Every example by itself you gave isn't religous in its very essence but when you bring in the human elemant it changes it all. We have been created to be religous creatures. The creation mandate is from a certian point of view a religous act. The market place in and of itself is not a religous thing but individual examples of the market place do take on the same elements of religion in general. Look at the idealized examples of beautywe are supposed to worship in our culture.



Beauty is a concept that has been relativized and pluralized, so there is no standard of beauty in our culture.

What you are doing is to oversimplify the human being and try to unify him in a way which, while it would be ideal, simply doesn't correspond to the way in which we actually make decisions.

When I am ordering pizza toppings, I may or may not be worrying about my health at the moment and I may or may not be worrying about my taste buds at the moment, but I am certainly not worrying about whether pepperoni, bacon, or sausage is the more holy topping.

When I go thrift shopping, I generally am not worrying about whether one tie or shirt is more holy than another--I am worrying about whether it's a quality fabric that goes with what I have already.

While I agree that the secular needs to, in the life of the Christian, be informed by and brought under the headship of Christ, I don't think we can say that it isn't a valid category. The secular is this: those areas of life that are not unique to any particular religion--that is to say, those activities which you do on Monday through Saturday. Certainly our faith should inform and be an integral part of our participation in these areas, but that's Christ and culture.


----------



## jwithnell (Apr 11, 2010)

> I don't know how impossible the cultural/creation mandate is now.


 The fall has dis-enabled us from fruitfully fulfilling our original calling. I agree with your later statement that the final dominion will be completed when Christ returns -- He will complete what man is unable to do. But our day-to-day activities are done within the scope of this commandment, and so it is impossible to tease apart the "secular" from everything else. 

One area of glaring difficulty: the Roman Catholic (and to some extent modern-day evangelicals) declaring that there is holy work (being a priest, nun, or monk) while the rest of us poor folks just aren't that blessed in our vocations. The Reformation set that notion to rest with the recognition of the sainthood of all believers and the holiness of all work done before God.


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 11, 2010)

*Quote from Phillip*


> If we are to say that all decisions are religiously motivated, we need to have a really broad definition of motivation. We may say that my decision to wear a red tie this morning was religiously motivated--but only in an indirect ultimate attitudinal sense that has little bearing on the decision itself. My direct motivations for wearing a red tie over a green one might have been exactly the same regardless of my religious convictions. What connection there is, is indirect.



How should we interpret the apostolic injunction that whatever we do we should do it to God's glory? (I Corinthians 10:31) Do we glorify God in choosing a red or green tie or eating a particular flavour of pizza, merely by virtue of these adiaphoric decisions being made in the context of a holy life?

*JWithnell*


> The Reformation set that notion to rest with the recognition of the sainthood of all believers and the holiness of all work done before God.



Yes. We need to think of what it means for believers to be full time prophets, priests and kings, regarding glorifying God in all aspects of life, including buying pizza. Are we choosing the pizza in the context of a God-honouring, Christ-glorifying, Spirit-filled heart and life.

God gives us a great deal of choice and freedom, within the context of his commandments, which are also liberating from the power of sin in our lives when used properly. Are we choosing that pizza within the context of a life lived in the liberty of the children of God or in the context of a legalistic or licentious life? 

Are we in the way of our "calling" - as the Puritans would say - or out of
the way of our calling in doing what we are particularly doing?



Are we in the way of our "calling" - as the Puritans would say - or out of


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 11, 2010)

> My point is that most of our decisions are of so little religious importance that to call them "religious" is to make the statement either a) tautologous (and of no practical use) b) meaningless.
> 
> If we are to say that all decisions are religiously motivated, we need to have a really broad definition of motivation. We may say that my decision to wear a red tie this morning was religiously motivated--but only in an indirect ultimate attitudinal sense that has little bearing on the decision itself. My direct motivations for wearing a red tie over a green one might have been exactly the same regardless of my religious convictions. What connection there is, is indirect.


Well than I tell you what I get the feeling we are going in metaphysical circles here. Also maybe, and quite probally, I am just completley misunderstanding you so I will ask some questions, if you don't mind, and that we can both be on the same boat. 
1. What criteria do you use to seperate a religous act from a nonreligous act?
2. What is the primary essence or purpose of humanity? In this context are we essentially religous by creation or religion is something we do on top of whatever our primary essence is?



> And you cannot rip an abstract "motive" out of its everyday ordinary context, abstract it, and call it the absolute unifying principle of everything. We can say certainly that every decision ought to be essentially religious. But to say that all decisions are essentially religious is to take the word "religious" out of its ordinary usage and context and make it almost meaningless.


I'm not, I was simply pointing out that when I James Wright go and get something it is all of me that does that not some part of me. But again we are definantly going in metaphysical circles here, I don't know do you agree with that at least?



> While I agree that the secular needs to, in the life of the Christian, be informed by and brought under the headship of Christ, I don't think we can say that it isn't a valid category. The secular is this: those areas of life that are not unique to any particular religion--that is to say, those activities which you do on Monday through Saturday. Certainly our faith should inform and be an integral part of our participation in these areas, but that's Christ and culture.


Where did or does this ideal secular society of yours exsist? I have never seen it nor do I expect to. The question I pose is why? Why has this ideal society that is nuetral in all religous respects never exsisted? Also if you believe such a nuetral place exsists why should your religous views be allowed in the public square? Look at all chaos there is in our culture just over the place of religion in the public square. If what you mean by secular isn't that stuff than we are talking about two different things. 
All my side is saying is that the reason why secularism cannot work in theory or in practice is because at its very core it is a religous point of view, it as a theory has things to say about religion. In theory it has strong convictions on the place of religion in society, as far as pluralism goes this is just one type of secular theory. If you unmask these religous points of views that are inherent in the theory itself than the argument against religion or a particular religion goes away. You cannot use a religous point of view to say that you can't include religous views in society. 
Also we, following Augustine, believe that the primary essence or purpose of humans is that they are religous creatures. How is the dominion mandate, which includes all of your examples by the way, not religous?


----------



## JOwen (Apr 11, 2010)

Cannibalism would be out! That is how *cooking* would be impacted by Christianity.


----------



## Philip (Apr 11, 2010)

> 1. What criteria do you use to seperate a religous act from a nonreligous act?



The direct motivation. That is, if you were to ask someone "why" in ordinary parlance, the kind of answer they would give.



> 2. What is the primary essence or purpose of humanity? In this context are we essentially religous by creation or religion is something we do on top of whatever our primary essence is?



To glorify God and enjoy Him forever--obviously. However, one can make millions of decisions without ever asking this question or needing an ultimate answer.

Also, you are using the term "religion" to mean "personal philosophy" or "worldview"--religion, by most definitions, is characterized by sets of corporate ceremonies. On top of that is the Biblical command that pure and undefiled religion do good works.



> Where did or does this ideal secular society of yours exsist? I have never seen it nor do I expect to. The question I pose is why? Why has this ideal society that is nuetral in all religous respects never exsisted?



It is supposed to exist in the western world, except that, as it currently stands, "intolerance" is not allowed--and I maintain that it should be.



> Also if you believe such a nuetral place exsists why should your religous views be allowed in the public square?



Because the public square is neutral--that is to say, it is the place where (in theory) all religious views are given their day.



> Look at all chaos there is in our culture just over the place of religion in the public square. If what you mean by secular isn't that stuff than we are talking about two different things.



You're right that my ideal concept of the secular doesn't exist because, frankly, our culture exercises censorship. Muslims and Buddhists are allowed--they aren't exlusivists. But woe betide the Christian who tries to bring his faith to bear in the public square.



> All my side is saying is that the reason why secularism cannot work in theory or in practice is because at its very core it is a religous point of view, it as a theory has things to say about religion.



Are we talking about two different things? You are talking about secular_ism_, which excludes all (Christian) religious convictions from public life, while I am speaking of something rather different--a concept of the secular where all religious convictions and views have a voice.



> If you unmask these religous points of views that are inherent in the theory itself than the argument against religion or a particular religion goes away.



All depends on what you mean by "religious". Most people, when they say "religion" mean "organized religion."


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 12, 2010)

> To glorify God and enjoy Him forever--obviously. However, one can make millions of decisions without ever asking this question or needing an ultimate answer.


Well one question here, and I am not trying to put on the defensive here I am just trying to clarify so that we might proceed without metaphysical circles if you have any questions of clarification on my part please ask them, does the sum total of ones life to include all seemingly nonreligous acts count or matter at the judgment? 



> All depends on what you mean by "religious".


Yeah you know it is my fault that I did not define this one better so my apologieze I will try to fix my mistake here. First off I reject the modern or secular understanding of religion, on the grounds that it seems to me to assume that old dualism of faith and reason. Following Augustine I do not hold to this dualistic view of things. In fact I believe that this is one avenue of criticism against the theory of secularism, it depends on this dualism. 

That being rejected how do I define religion, well following Augustine and his work On True Religion, religion is defined more or less by love and all the acts that flow from that (note: I have not read this book or I don't remember reading it, but I am getting my info from the James K. A. Smith's book on Radical Orthodoxy I mentioned in an ealier post.). In this vain Jesus somewhat summerizes this view in John 14:15 "If you love Me, keep my commandments." So maybe we can avoid the circles we have been going through by saying that people are religous not acts in themselves. Augustine points out that everyone is religious by nature, in the sense that they love something God or themselves, and so they have these acts of love that flow out of that nature and unless these acts flow out of a love for God than they are not right or true religously speaking.

As you quote the Catechism our chief end is to "glorify God and enjoy Him forever", all we are saying is that this is on acount of our love for God. So that if we love God than all of the orginization in visible corporate acts of worship and litergy all flow from this central love for God. Even following Luther's theology of vocation here, which is oddly absent from Smith's book but I feel is a nice touch at this point, that all callings for the Christian are sacred callings. Whatever calling you have by God you should do to His glory, which flows from love which is true religion. 

So I guess you could speak of motivation here its just that from my point of view if you take this motivation into account than it automatically taints every act we make as religous, if we love God and are doing *all* things to His glory. 



> It is supposed to exist in the western world, except that, as it currently stands, "intolerance" is not allowed--and I maintain that it should be.





> You're right that my ideal concept of the secular doesn't exist because, frankly, our culture exercises censorship. Muslims and Buddhists are allowed--they aren't exlusivists. But woe betide the Christian who tries to bring his faith to bear in the public square.


I couldn't agree more with the above statments.



> Are we talking about two different things? You are talking about secularism, which excludes all (Christian) religious convictions from public life, while I am speaking of something rather different--a concept of the secular where all religious convictions and views have a voice.


Well I agree on a civil level, not a theoretical level, that all religions should have a voice in the public square given the culture that we live in. But the problem is that this simple definition of secularism doesn't get you anywhere. You have to erect other theoretical constructs to make this even possibly able to work out in practice, secular morality or secular reason (I refer you to the youtube video I posted to deal with this). Also from my point of view in the end secularism as a theory grows out of religous roots of some kind, the secularist has a primary love involved here that their theoretical constructs and practical stratigies flow from.


----------



## Philip (Apr 12, 2010)

> Yeah you know it is my fault that I did not define this one better so my apologieze I will try to fix my mistake here. First off I reject the modern or secular understanding of religion, on the grounds that it seems to me to assume that old dualism of faith and reason.



I reject the dualism and accept the distinction (following Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin). 



> So I guess you could speak of motivation here its just that from my point of view if you take this motivation into account than it automatically taints every act we make as religous, if we love God and are doing all things to His glory.



I think we need to say that many acts are essentially or immediately secular. It is the spirit in which the act is performed that gives it a moral quality. That is to say, I cannot blame a non-Christian for choosing a tie because it was not a moral choice at all. We may say that it was done in an attitude of autonomy--but it is the attitude that is moral, not the act itself.

In other words, I do recognize secular (non-religious) acts and that they are done in a "religious" (defined broadly in your sense [a sense that will inevitably be misunderstood, since the term is not being used in its ordinary sense]) attitude--however, it is the attitude not the action that is moral.


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 12, 2010)

> I think we need to say that many acts are essentially or immediately secular. It is the spirit in which the act is performed that gives it a moral quality. That is to say, I cannot blame a non-Christian for choosing a tie because it was not a moral choice at all. We may say that it was done in an attitude of autonomy--but it is the attitude that is moral, not the act itself.
> 
> In other words, I do recognize secular (non-religious) acts and that they are done in a "religious" (defined broadly in your sense [a sense that will inevitably be misunderstood, since the term is not being used in its ordinary sense]) attitude--however, it is the attitude not the action that is moral.


I guess we are in a basic agreement than.


----------



## Philip (Apr 12, 2010)

jwright82 said:


> > I think we need to say that many acts are essentially or immediately secular. It is the spirit in which the act is performed that gives it a moral quality. That is to say, I cannot blame a non-Christian for choosing a tie because it was not a moral choice at all. We may say that it was done in an attitude of autonomy--but it is the attitude that is moral, not the act itself.
> >
> > In other words, I do recognize secular (non-religious) acts and that they are done in a "religious" (defined broadly in your sense [a sense that will inevitably be misunderstood, since the term is not being used in its ordinary sense]) attitude--however, it is the attitude not the action that is moral.
> 
> ...


 
I think we're just wrestling with yet another version of the problem of the one and the many.


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 12, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> > > I think we need to say that many acts are essentially or immediately secular. It is the spirit in which the act is performed that gives it a moral quality. That is to say, I cannot blame a non-Christian for choosing a tie because it was not a moral choice at all. We may say that it was done in an attitude of autonomy--but it is the attitude that is moral, not the act itself.
> ...


 
I think you are are dead on!


----------

