More Questions than Answers from Isaiah 6

While doing some research in anticipation of Trinity Sunday I came across the following quote and have not been able to put it down.

"The sacred is found wherever religion is found; the holy wherever God is present. Accordingly, it is quite possible to consider many things as sacred but nothing as holy, or equally possible to treat many things as holy but nothing as sacred. Everything depends on the concept of God. Of the two terms, theistic religions view the holy as primary, the sacred as secondary." Paul S. Minear, Yale Divinity School. Theology Today, 1990

After rereading the Minear quotation this morning I wonder about his definitions of sacred and holy. What is the content of each? What differentiates? I think I read the first line not as an experiential observation but as a definition of terms.

Here is my re-write. Do I read him right?
"Where you find religion you will find lots of sacred stuff but you might not find God. But when you find God you will find the holy but might not find any religion. Accordingly, it is quite possible to consider many things RELIGIOUS but nothing CARRYING THE PRESENCE OF GOD, or equally possible to treat many things as CARRYING THE PRESENCE OF GOD but nothing RELIGIOUS. Everything depends on the concept of God. Of the two terms, theistic religions view the PRESENCE OF GOD as primary, the RELIGIOUS as secondary." Paul S. Minear as interpreted by Sparks, 2006

If I am close to Minear's meaning then I agree. This is much more in line with my sense of freedom to find God (the holy) in the most unexpected places and people. In fact maybe the hardest place to find the holy is in the sacred. The sacred cries out, "Worship me. Hold me. Cherish me. Protect me." The sacred quickly puts up fences, hurdles and walls to protect itself but ends up protecting us from the holy, God Himself. I am reminded of Toxic Faith. The sacred has become a substitute for the holy and thus religion becomes toxic. In this case the sacred tracks down the holy seeking to control it, codify it, but ends up corrupting it.

This also reflects my experience. The people around me have found little of value in sacred things, sacred language or sacred traditions. They really do seek for the holy but can't separate the sacred from the holy or religion from God. I am not sure that the church knows how to separate them either. It seems to me that most of our attempts to separate just end up substituting one set of sacreds for another i.e. traditional for contemporary, hymn books for walls, one expectation for another.

Maybe the problem is that the sacred and the holy cannot or should not be separated. Maybe we just need to keep our definitions and priorities clear, i.e. the holy as primary, the sacred as secondary.

I love the visual picture the Acts 14 council in Jerusalem when James feels it necessary to codify the holy which Paul found among the Gentiles; “(The gentile believers) – should abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.”

I know that James was facing a highly charged political atmosphere but is that not typical of religion? Actually, in his old age and under less or no political pressure, James got it right: “Religion that God our father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself form being polluted by the world.”

Does the coming of the Spirit of Christ make this James-Religion possible?

Does not an authentic Isaiah-Cleansing send us out to care more about those in distress than for our own lives?

Is not this James-Religion the simplest expression of God’s primary disposition towards the world?