'Sacred' vs 'holy'

[Vlad!]

In Comparative Religous Ethics, Darrell Fasching and Dell Dechant assert that there is a difference between that which is 'sacred' and that which is 'holy.' The sacred is an adherence to tradition and ritual: the right way is the 'rite' way, as they say. The holy is the transcendance of tradition into a more universal understanding of ethics, and is characterized by thought and by looking at other cultures for a greater understanding of your own. It's fairly obvious where the leanings of the authors are, but I found it to be interesting. After all, Jesus Himself was something of an iconoclast, challenging the Pharasees and their 'sacred' beliefs and shaking them up with his 'holy' actions. His refrain was "you have heard this, but now I tell you this other thing." He encouraged rational thought in the face of tradition (yes the Law says to keep the Sabbath holy, but which of you would not rescue his own lamb if it were stranded on a cliff?) and morality in the face of a cold and just law (yes you are to stone sinners, but which of you is without sin?). So Dechant and Fasching would have to agree that Christ focused on the holy (as they define it) rather than the sacred.

So maybe this can help us. When we look at something, look at it not as an object which relates to a tradition, but an object which is worth of thought and consideration.  

[Skrappybiskit]

It's a fun theory, actually, but wouldn't you agree that we're tilting at windmills here? In my part of the world the words "holy" and "sacred" are synonyms, but it seems that these men have infused them with their own definition and then run from there. It seems like a distinction without a difference.

Skraps

[oneafroboy]

I think, regardless of whether we can make a distinction or not, that you are giving good advice, Vlad! It's so easy to equate or confuse morality with tradition. It's much better to look at everything with discernment provided to us by God through our intellect, His Holy Spirit, and His Word.

It's a fun theory, actually, but wouldn't you agree that we're tilting at windmills here? In my part of the world the words "holy" and "sacred" are synonyms, but it seems that these men have infused them with their own definition and then run from there. It seems like a distinction without a difference.

I see what you're getting at Skraps. (I like the metaphor you had there, with the windmills.) In some ways, perhaps they are making a distinction without a true difference. I think of it this way. God is holy. The church is sacred. I don't think you can switch those too. "God is scared" just doesn't make sense. God is not a thing or a rite. He's a divine being. And "the chuch is holy" certainly doesn't cut it (we have not been made holy yet, we are still awaiting our wedding day!). Hopefully that will help your confusion or misunderstanding. I am curious about what part of the world you are from such that the words are synonymous. I had not thought about that.

 

[Skrappybiskit]

I see what you're getting at Skraps. (I like the metaphor you had there, with the windmills.) In some ways, perhaps they are making a distinction without a true difference. I think of it this way. God is holy. The church is sacred. I don't think you can switch those too. "God is scared" just doesn't make sense. God is not a thing or a rite. He's a divine being. And "the chuch is holy" certainly doesn't cut it (we have not been made holy yet, we are still awaiting our wedding day!). Hopefully that will help your confusion or misunderstanding. I am curious about what part of the world you are from such that the words are synonymous. I had not thought about that.

Gee I hope that God isn't scared

I suppose holy and sacred have certain little dimensional differences to them, where holy is more of an abstract concept, and sacred deals with more concrete things.

On the other hand though -- and especially in scripture -- holy is used to mean "set apart" like when the church is called a holy people in Hebrews. Just like nation of Israel was called a holy people in OT. There isn't anything especially holy about the Church, and the nation of Israel certainly wasn't very good at holiness in the sense of sinlessness, but both entities are related and set apart from other entities and from the world.

There is of course an aspect where God being 3xHoly means not only that is he magestically perfect, but that he is entirely set apart from anything that we can comprehend, and only through his grace does he actually draw near to us.

Analogous: Holy water. The RCC uses it, but what they mean by holy is actually sacred, because in the end there's nothing particulary perfect about the water. In fact most of the time it looks like Glorified Bath Water. Just so you know I'm not some crazy etemological nut,

Skraps

[Vlad!]

It's a fun theory, actually, but wouldn't you agree that we're tilting at windmills here? In my part of the world the words "holy" and "sacred" are synonyms, but it seems that these men have infused them with their own definition and then run from there. It seems like a distinction without a difference.

Yes, nice Don Quixote allusion.

And I thought I made it clear that these shades of distinction were an invention of Fascher and Dechant. I didn't say these are the cast-in-concrete definitions of these words. They're just words that are used to show a dichotomy that not everybody might be familiar with. It IS a distinction, ans there IS a difference. If you don't understand what that difference is then I'll try to explain further...

So just to make it clear: the way the Bible uses those words is NOT the same way these authors are using them. But if we can talk about the concept for a moment without getting caught up in semantics, I think some good and insightful things can be gleaned from this distinction.  

[Skrappybiskit]

Yes, nice Don Quixote allusion.

And I thought I made it clear that these shades of distinction were an invention of Fascher and Dechant. I didn't say these are the cast-in-concrete definitions of these words. They're just words that are used to show a dichotomy that not everybody might be familiar with. It IS a distinction, ans there IS a difference. If you don't understand what that difference is then I'll try to explain further...

So just to make it clear: the way the Bible uses those words is NOT the same way these authors are using them. But if we can talk about the concept for a moment without getting caught up in semantics, I think some good and insightful things can be gleaned from this distinction.

Oh, there's worth in what they're trying to say, I'll give you that. But it somehow seems that there is a better way to bring the point across other than a pseudo-intellectual imposition of meanings.

Skraps

ps: but semantics are so *fun*!

[Vlad!]

What, you would rather they have invented their own words? The 'sacred' could be traditio-centric conservativism and the 'holy' could be analytical socio-ethical perspectivism. Are those better for you?

And what do you mean, pseudo-intellectual? Authors hijack words and use them for their own purposes all the time. Sacred and holy are two words that have different meanings given different cultures, contexts, and religions. So in a book devoted to comparing ethics in multiple religions, these two authors take these words and give them comcrete definions for the scope of their book. In my own post I retained their usage because I thought we were capable of analyzing thoughts and ideas based on their own merit, not based on our pre-conceived notions about the symbols we're using to communicate these ideas. Apparently I was mistaken.

[DvChWi]

I think the problem here is that in your original post, it sounded like you were more interested in discussing the meaning of the words, rather than the whole conceptual thing.  I think that now we all understand where we are going, and can now engage in civil discussion.  In all my posts in this thread, I will use the definitions of "holy" and "sacred" as defined by Fascher and Dechant.  With that out of the way, I must say that I do agree with the main point that sacred traditions and customs are different from holiness, and that being truly holy might involve a rejection of those sacred things.  Traditions and customs are 100% man made, so God is not mandating adherance to any paticular set of customs.

[Vlad!]

Thanks, Dv, and I think you're right.

One thing, of course, that must be taken into consideration is that the sacred describes a mindset as much as actions taken. I don't want to give the impression that rebelling against custom is always good or that custom itself is always bad. I think the holy involves a thoughtful consideration of ethics without a bias or (even worse) complete adherence to tradition and custom.  

[Skrappybiskit]

What, you would rather they have invented their own words? The 'sacred' could be traditio-centric conservativism and the 'holy' could be analytical socio-ethical perspectivism. Are those better for you?

And what do you mean, pseudo-intellectual? Authors hijack words and use them for their own purposes all the time. Sacred and holy are two words that have different meanings given different cultures, contexts, and religions. So in a book devoted to comparing ethics in multiple religions, these two authors take these words and give them comcrete definions for the scope of their book. In my own post I retained their usage because I thought we were capable of analyzing thoughts and ideas based on their own merit, not based on our pre-conceived notions about the symbols we're using to communicate these ideas. Apparently I was mistaken.

No, I would rather that they have approached the topic without, as you say, hijacking the meanings of the words. And unless these gentlemen come from another culture where they use these words in a different sense, it seems superflous that they re-define the words. Granted, I haven't read the book, and given--what you now tell me is--the wide scope of the writing, it may be that the definitions of these words helps graft meaning into polyreligious ethical examinations. I wouldn't know. But it seems, again apparently just to me, that in the given example, ripped out of context, the redefinition of terms is merely an un-needed way of beating around the mulberry bush.

But really, the symbols are immaterial, sure. But the meaning I attach to them in the communication the ideas is important as well, considering that if I had taken my traditionalist definition of holy/sacred or even a scriptural definition of holy/sacred, I would have ended up arguing with you endlessly based on a misconception. And if we hadn't had this discussion, so might any number of others. So it's not such a mind-numbing waste of time.

In Comparative Religous Ethics, Darrell Fasching and Dell Dechant assert that there is a difference between that which is 'sacred' and that which is 'holy.' The sacred is an adherence to tradition and ritual: the right way is the 'rite' way, as they say. The holy is the transcendance of tradition into a more universal understanding of ethics, and is characterized by thought and by looking at other cultures for a greater understanding of your own.

I can't really comment on the above lines, because basically they've defined the point into existance. That said, I do think the sacred and the holy cross over into eachother a lot more than this snippet seems to allow for. Like things that have become tradition because they are transcendant and universal.

Question: what exactly do you mean by a greater understanding of your own culture? Do they mean contrast what you are to what others are, or do they mean compare notes in algebra class? A mixture of both?


It's fairly obvious where the leanings of the authors are, but I found it to be interesting. After all, Jesus Himself was something of an iconoclast, challenging the Pharasees and their 'sacred' beliefs and shaking them up with his 'holy' actions. His refrain was "you have heard this, but now I tell you this other thing." He encouraged rational thought in the face of tradition (yes the Law says to keep the Sabbath holy, but which of you would not rescue his own lamb if it were stranded on a cliff?) and morality in the face of a cold and just law (yes you are to stone sinners, but which of you is without sin?). So Dechant and Fasching would have to agree that Christ focused on the holy (as they define it) rather than the sacred.

Am I right that this is you speaking now, and not the authors? As in Vlad the .... duck applying their arguments in ethics to Christ? Paul also would be an iconoclast as well, would he not? He did almost the same thing as Jesus when the legalists descended en masse upon the early church demanding that people eat kosher meat and be circumsized and things of that nature?

But then what of immortal quotes from Paul such as this one:

Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. (1 Corinthians 11:2)

Skraps

[Vlad!]

No, I would rather that they have approached the topic without, as you say, hijacking the meanings of the words. And unless these gentlemen come from another culture where they use these words in a different sense, it seems superflous that they re-define the words. Granted, I haven't read the book, and given--what you now tell me is--the wide scope of the writing, it may be that the definitions of these words helps graft meaning into polyreligious ethical examinations. I wouldn't know. But it seems, again apparently just to me, that in the given example, ripped out of context, the redefinition of terms is merely an un-needed way of beating around the mulberry bush.
 

Ok, now we're getting somewhere

First, I must apologize: when I said

Darrell Fasching and Dell Dechant assert that there is a difference between that which is 'sacred' and that which is 'holy.' The sacred is an adherence to tradition and ritual: the right way is the 'rite' way, as they say. The holy is the transcendance of tradition into a more universal understanding of ethics

I meant that to imply that F&D were redefining the two words based on the following definitions. I guess I didn't make that clear enough.

And maybe they did make a poor choice for using pre-existing (and pre-defined) words to convey these new ideas. I think (and this is my opinion on the authors' thought processes) that they themselves want their definitions to supercede those already existing. This seems a little odd, to say the least, so I hope I'm mistaken in this.

I can't really comment on the above lines, because basically they've defined the point into existance. That said, I do think the sacred and the holy cross over into eachother a lot more than this snippet seems to allow for. Like things that have become tradition because they are transcendant and universal.

Yes, because (taken to their logical extremes) if the entire world were to become 'holy' then everybody would apply logic and reason to every situation, so one might say that the 'holy' had itself become the 'sacred.' I think, though, what they mean by this is that tradition and ritual should not be the only correct answer: "because we've always done it this way" is not an acceptable reason for continuing to do it that way. If there's a logical reason behind the action that the doer of the action understands (for example, "we always do it this way because it's the quickest way to accomplish the task, and here's why:...").

Question: what exactly do you mean by a greater understanding of your own culture? Do they mean contrast what you are to what others are, or do they mean compare notes in algebra class? A mixture of both?

I'd say more the former. In the latter, you assume that your neighbor's notes might be more correct than your own. Here, we are taking our views that we hold to be true and trying to figure out what exactly they mean for us. So we can take things that other cultures hold to be true and see if these 'truths' (and we don't even have to acknowledge them as true) can help illuminate our own beliefs somehow. This relates to another thread on this board where I use a tenet from Buddhism to attempt to explain something in Christianity.

Am I right that this is you speaking now, and not the authors? As in Vlad the .... duck applying their arguments in ethics to Christ? Paul also would be an iconoclast as well, would he not? He did almost the same thing as Jesus when the legalists descended en masse upon the early church demanding that people eat kosher meat and be circumsized and things of that nature?

I'm trying to show how these somewhat pie-in-the-sky notions I've presented can work for us. I show how F&D's defintion of holy actually has merit by applying it to Christ and showing how He exemplifies it. Paul is, as you say, another example.

Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. (1 Corinthians 11:2)

What indeed? All I have to say about this before looking into it further is that Paul believed Christ was coming SOON, as in before he died. Paul was big on maintaining your life just as it is now until Christ returned. He was, as I hope you can see, mistaken about this. Does this mean he was mistaken about maintaining the traditions, too? Maybe, but I'd have to know what exact traditions he's talking about. Maybe he's referring to communion and baptism, two sacraments that could be called traditions in the Church.  

[oneafroboy]

First, thanks Skraps for correcting me on my logic about the separation of holy and sacred. I stand corrected. I would agree that they cross over much more than we realize.

But in light of F&D, it's easier to talk about what Vlad! is bringing to light if we have some idea that there is a difference between tradition and what is right. As Vlad! said, we're using them as symbols to articulate ideas. However, perhaps it is not best to do that, if not everyone agrees that this is right.

One thing that's been mentioned in this thread is culture. I think often time in the "American Church" (this may be true in other cultures, too), part of our American culture and ideas drift into our idea of Truth and what is True and becomes inseparable. There are myths within the Church that often times we accept instead of using discernment and determing whether they or right or not. Just because something has been incorporated into the Church as tradition does not make it automatically "good" or "righteous". Now, there is certainly something to be said about tradition (order of worship is generally a good thing to prevent chaos, as long as there is room to "breathe"), but that does not mean we should look at our tradition and make sure they are done for the right reasons.

In response to the quote from Paul: Obviously there were some traditions which Paul thought were all right; but that doesn't mean he accepted them or expected the Corinthian Church to follow them just because they were traditions. Some traditions are good and should remain a part of the Church. Maybe Paul was reinforcing them.

Vlad!: Hey, could you start a thread, or maybe just discuss it here, about how Paul thought Jesus was coming soon. This is a new concept for me, and I am ignorant on the subject. I've never looked at Paul's letters like that. It intrigues me very much, and I'd love to hear what you think about it more in depth.

 

[Vlad!]

One thing that's been mentioned in this thread is culture. I think often time in the "American Church" (this may be true in other cultures, too), part of our American culture and ideas drift into our idea of Truth and what is True and becomes inseparable. There are myths within the Church that often times we accept instead of using discernment and determing whether they or right or not. Just because something has been incorporated into the Church as tradition does not make it automatically "good" or "righteous". Now, there is certainly something to be said about tradition (order of worship is generally a good thing to prevent chaos, as long as there is room to "breathe"), but that does not mean we should look at our tradition and make sure they are done for the right reasons.

Good words, Afro, and I think that you've hit the idea that I've been going for. The right way is not always the 'rite' way.