This section of posting is reserved for comments relating to Sacred and Secular Knowledge. Please post accordingly.
20 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I would like to comment just briefly on a few of the major points which Dr. Hanna outlined in chapter four of his book. First, I will comment on the increase of knowledge which is taking place. I am interested in the idea the author present and how he applied his biblical and wholestic framework to the concept of increasing spiritual knowledge. Often times, one focuses on a single aspect of God’s revelation, perhaps the scriptures or Christ. However, the wholistic model expresses that not only are all three necessary, but that all three are interconnected one with another. This brings up the other point in the chapter that I found revealing. That is, the section which spoke of the need to increase spiritual and secular knowledge. To gain a more perfect view of God we must go “to and fro” between Christ, the scriptures, and the cosmos. Being connected as they are, we cannot afford to become content in any one area. Finally, I would like to bring up a point that came up in class a while back. The idea that we have properly interpreted scripture, and thus become complacent in our reading and studying of it, is in actuality a kind of close-mindedness. In sight of this, the author, and I agree, that a constant “to and fro” method is necessary if we are to more fully understand the three revelations of God. 9/23/2006 7:27 PM
I was blessed and challenged by your idea that I have a responsibility to improve not only my spiritual understanding but also my secular knowledge. You state that, "Unfortunately many Christians shirk their responsibility to increase spiritual knowledge." I have felt a pull from both extremes at different times to pursue one to the neglect of the other. I was challenged to find a balance where I seek to gain as much of both as I am able.
I was challenged by a preacher a few years back, regarding ministry, to "find the place where theology and real life intersect and stay there." I loved your idea regarding relavancy in the Bible that you shared in class. Im not sure it was in your book but it is related. You said that the Bible is relavant and we dont have to make it relavant, we just need to discover how it is relavant, and if our theology is not relavant we might not be preaching the right thing. That is my paraphrase of your words, hope that is what you really said and not what I read into it.
I came away with the idea that I need to immurse myself in Christ as He is revealed in the Bible and also be "in the world". "In the world" means to me that I need to be involved in regular life which includes knowing more than just theology. Thanks for the help.
I am reminded about my undergraduate schooling. Some people would complain that they have to take all the generals to graduate. But the argument against that is that it is important to have a well-rounded education. I think that this book makes a good case that we need to have a well-rounded or wholistic approach to life. It is easy to for people to get so focused on the Bible, that they leave Jesus and others whom it is their task to reach out of their lives. It can also be a trap for some people to talk about Jesus and give their own ideas about life without consulting the Bible. Let us learn to integrate faith with learning so we go to school we are learning this knowledge not just to get a certificate and move on, but so that we may learn better to live a “wholistic life that is Biblical, Christ-centered and relevant to the world” as the author of the book would put it.”
I like the suggestion that we need to go to and fro between the Bible and Christ. This helps us to remember who the whole Bible points to and who is our reason for living. And the suggestion to go to and fro between the Bible and the world is good for remembering that the Bible shows how we should live in the world, and the same time we need to identify with people in order to show them Jesus.
This comment is based upon pages 55 and 56 of the Cosmic of Christ. You have written that we as followers of Christ should focus on increasing knowledge every opportunity that we get. “The students should improve every moment to increase their knowledge, that they may put it to practical use as laborers together with God for the help and blessing of their fellow men.” (page 56, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture.) I believe that this is something that we don’t do as much as we should. I have a feeling that as a society we’ve become more reliant on visual entertainment instead of just studying and reading the scripture. We have become too lazy mentally, that more individuals would rather watch a movie than read a book. This is one way that the devil has hit the people of God. This is why I agree with your statement that we should take every opportunity to increase our knowledge of God through scripture and through experience from witnessing. I believe this is a discipline that must be adopted in order to be followers of Christ. Our understanding of Christ and his gospel, based on Scripture, is our spiritual food on this earth. As we grow more in the knowledge of Christ, we adopt his nature. This is why I am in the Seminary! 9/27/2006 8:07 PM
I have really appreciated the detailed search into the relationships between Christ, Scripture, and the Cosmos. The holistic approach to these three Revelations of God places a checks-and-balances system on the human understanding of God. In my own life I have seen Christians place either too much or too little emphasis on their own experience as opposed to Scripture, and Hanna’s book has helped me to see the necessary balance. Presenting this material in light of Daniel 12, Hanna shows the importance of increasing knowledge, both secular and spiritual, in order to obtain a fuller faith in Christ. I contrast this with some Christians’ fear of polluting their faith with secular knowledge. Considering the Cosmos and everything in it and about it as God’s dear creation, I agree with Hanna and believe we must move forward with our experiences and observations in and about the world, always comparing these new findings with what we read in the Word of God in Scripture.
Regarding the primary model presented in the book, I wonder where the Church, the collection of individual Christians, fits into the picture. My question arises in terms of evangelism with the thought that we as Christians do not really “reveal” God to those around us, but rather point to God’s own self-revelation. It is not up to us to make up anything new about God but simply to attract others to the already-existing God through Christ, Scripture, and the Cosmos. With this in mind, a popular saying tells that we might be the only Jesus some people see. So is the Church an aspect of Christ in the book’s model? Or is the Church a part of the Cosmos as God’s human creation? One could also consider the Church – meaning God’s people throughout history – an aspect of Scripture because God used a certain chosen of these people in the revelation process with the hopeful intention of saving all humanity. Perhaps the answer is all three. 9/30/2006 9:09 PM
I am struggling with the understanding of the words "sacred" and "secular", I think. It seems like there are some things that are not beneficial for me to increase my knowledge of. I understand the quest for knowledge to be an intensely spiritual endeavor, and there are types of knowledge that should be avoided because they are detrimental to my spiritual connection with God. This can be most obvioulsy demonstrated by the account of Adam and Eve and the Tree of Knowledge. It was not beneficial for them to obtain the knowledge that the serpent had presented before them as attainable. It can also be demonstrated in Paul's words, "All things are permissable for me, but all are not beneficial". In other words, when we talk of the importance of increasing in "secular" knowledge, or acknowledging the mere reality of that increase, we need to distinguish between what is beneficial for us to know and what is destructive.
At the same time, I want to acknowledge that it IS important to increase in secular knowledge because it does allow us as witnesses and ministers of the Gospel to maintain our relevance to the world around us. God created us as living souls - having a combination of spiritual and natural (or however you want to describe it). Sin has created a terrible disunity between those apsects of our nature, and I think it is important to connect the two and to help others to do the same in the context of biblical truth.
As I was read chapter 4, one section and specifically one quote, caught my attention. On page 62 in quoting Counsels to Teachers by Ellen White the author states, “above all other people on earth, the man [the person] whose mind is enlightened by the word of God will feel that he [or she] must give himself [or herself] to greater diligence in the perusal of the Bible, and a diligent study of the sciences.” Imagine the study of sciences and the natural world around us being considered as part of our Christian responsibility! This gives further validity to the threefold revelations of God, which point to each other in their own unique primacies. In other words, in the above quote Ellen White is saying that deep study of Scripture leads us to desire a deeper understanding of the revelation of God in creation, i.e. the sciences.
I have often questioned the strong delineation that we place as Christians between the ‘secular’ and the ‘sacred.’ Frequently, the marks and rational seem contrived, as we send mixed messages of what can contain ‘truth’ to our young people [and people of all ages for that matter!]. I believe that this separation of all things into two distinct categories is not found in Scripture, or in Ellen White. In another quote from this chapter she says, “all nature expresses the law of God, but in our physical structure Jehovah has written His law with His own finger upon every thrilling nerve, upon every living fiber, and upon every organ of the body,” p. 61. You find in the Bible the separation between the ‘law of sin’ and the ‘law of righteousness’ and also the ‘sinful man’ and ‘man of God.’ Also there are many times in the human experience where one sees that there are two powers fighting within them for their allegiance. [Romans 7:15-17] In the realm of the sacred there are many other times when something or more often someone is set aside for a holy use and becomes sacred.
The dictionary defines secular as, “of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.” I would argue that nothing is ‘secular,’ in the way that it is being used as the opposite of sacred. We, as humans, can have a tendency to compartmentalize our lives and draw boundaries that mark off where God is allowed to ‘show up’ or reveal Godself to us. Often the view is that when we go to church, the place is holy and we expect a revelation of God there. However, when we’re driving through frustrating traffic, clearly the situation is not holy and we don’t expect God to be concerned about revealing anything to us in that scenario. According to the revelations of God – Christ, Scripture and Nature [Creation] – God wants to show up everywhere and to show humanity who God is! Whether in the common or the elaborate, God is seeking to reveal Godself to us and that means through science, nature, Christianity community or even some things that would surprise us or make us uncomfortable. Praise the Lord. --Tara VinCross
I believe we need to be cautious about going "to and fro" from sacred to secular. The idea is that the bible is incomplete and that we need to find the rest of God's knowledge in the secular realm is not all that it is cracked up to be. This thinking is dangerous. The bible is sufficient for all things, I am not espousing fundamentalism, but what I mean is that the principles of the scriptures prevade every aspect of life. And by being familiar with them leads into true knowledge.
Long ago in the history of our denomination a debate was to be had with representatives from our Church and representatives from the science community on the merits of evolution. At that time, one of our ablest apologist, Francis D. Nichol was sent with other to debate the evolutionist. Some in our church did not like the choice of Nichol, they felt that we should send one of our bretheren who had been trained in evolutionary thought. In other words they wanted to send one of our members who had attended schools where evolution was a part of the curiculm. F.D. Nichol, had attended SDA schools his whole life and was not familiar with evolution at all, yet he knew his bible and was a God fearing man. When Nichol received word of what he was to do, he and his delegation went to the best public library and solicited the leading authorities on evolution, for weeks he and others poured over countless volumes, taking careful notes and analyzing arguments. Finally when the debate came, Nichol put a clinic on. The secular moderators and observes all admited that Nichol had presented his case persuasively and clearly. According to all he had won his part of the debate. The point I make in telling you this, is that we don't need to go to the world to make our knowledge complete we need to follow Jesus, he will give us the wisdom we need and the ability to evaluate, learn, and live in the world around us. Remember the "fear of the Lord is the begining of wisdom."
The concept of going to and fro from “sacred” Scripture to “secular” cosmos, as outlined in my book, does not indicate that Scripture is incomplete. The Bible is a sufficient rule of faith, practice, and knowledge, as I write in my book. I agree that biblical principles pervade all things. At the same time, I also write that the Bible is not a textbook on all subjects.
The Bible teaches (1) that we may learn from the world and (2) that we may teach the world. First, the Bible supports a study of the world of God’s creation. Speak to the earth and she will teach you (Job 12:8). Second, the Bible also gives us the tools to correct “the vain, deceitful, and traditional philosophy of the rudiments of the world” (Col 2:8).
The case of F. D. Nichol supports my point. Based on biblical principles he was able to study evolution as part of his preparation to defend the biblical perspective in which he was already well trained.
I am surprised by the comment that we should search after secular as well as spiritual knowledge. Many conservative Christians would argue that the increase in spiritual knowledge is necessary while the secular will rot the mind. Yet those same conservative Christians recognize that there is still a necessity for them to increase even in secular knowledge. New technology is impacting our lives on a daily basis. The way we buy our groceries, interacting and utilizing the internet, home security systems are all examples of how we cannot continue to be ignorant of increasing in secular knowledge. We must stay in contact with what is going on in our world for purposes of practicality and even safety. Not being aware of recalls on foods, , and dangerous products can be detrimental. That doesn't mean we need to increase our knowledge of every evil & wicked thing under the sun. Why do we feel it necessary to learn secular knowledge for the purpose of practical every day living, but when it comes to the gospel, we must be outdated and stagnant. Why can’t we increase in secular knowledge for the purpose of more clearly relating the gospel to the people in our secular world? I have come to realize that there is a great deal of postmodern thinking in me. When I became an SDA Christian, I suppressed it when it came to matters of faith for fear that I would dishonor Christ. Now I am beginning to realize that God can use my questions, secular knowledge, & postmodern ways of thinking to strengthen my faith in scripture and better reach the people in the world I live.
I agree with the importance of secular knowledge for the Christian work and for relevancy in our world. The problem is with how we implement the learning of it in our children. It seems like we either discount the problems that secular science creates and don't teach them, or don't teach them about the problems to try to protect them from these ideas. The person grows up and then is finally exposed to them. They usually learn these things from a non-christian source that is highly credible and it can rock their faith. Wouldn't it be better to learn about these problems from a christian source that can guide them through other possible interpretations of the problems and that can show scientific problems to non-christian interpretations. Most of the science that is published and taught is non-christian. I really appreciate learning science from a honest Christian point of view. I agree with Ellen White when she says we need more Christians to study science and influence the scientific community, but it is not easy. Like Lot in Sodom and Gomorrah, your out numbered. Hanna gives a quote by Ellen White where she says that "God desires His workers to gain daily a better understanding of how to reason logically from cause to affect, arriving at wise, safe conclusions." I personally come from a computer science/mathematics background. In these fields I was trained to think logically and how to prove something is true. Because of my training, I often see logical errors people's aurguments that they may not see. I'm not saying that I am always right, but I feel that my previous training is put to good use in studying and teaching God's Word.
Chapter 4 of The Cosmic Christ of Scripture presents a wholistic model of knowledge that is tightly tied in with the concept of going “to and fro” to obtain knowledge. I appreciate the way that Dr. Hanna not only implies in his book that we must go “to and fro” to increase our knowledge in Scripture, but that we must also go “to and fro” between Scripture and God’s other revelations. Having knowledge of Scripture without centering it on knowledge of what Christ has done for me is useless. Likewise, having knowledge of Scripture without grounding that knowledge in the cosmos, or nature, is useless. God speaks to us in our time and place through His revelations. Scripture gives me the ultimate guiding principles for my life. But I must take those principles and allow them to help me understand Christ and to apply what He has done for me to my own life. I must also take those principles into the world around me (including all the secular knowledge that I am bombarded with every day) and apply them so that Christ and Scripture make a difference in my own everyday existence. If I can’t make a “to and fro” connection between Christ, Scripture, and the world around me (in other words, a connection between sacred and secular knowledge), then each of these revelations of God will remain isolated and totally useless to me in my life.
"I am struggling with the understanding of the words 'sacred' and 'secular', I think. It seems like there are some things that are not beneficial for me to increase my knowledge of."
I believe that it is important to have the widest range of knowledge possible in order to have a clear understanding of the world in which we operate. I have heard the analogy about knowing the geniune so well that you don't need to study the fake, but that doesn't apply in practical situations.
If I have no knoweldge of what Chingy and 50 Cent are saying in their music, I cannot effectively and accurately combat their "teachings". God's ideal was that man would not be exposed to evil, however, we have been and because of that, we need to have at least "book" knowledge of it, especially as ministers to the lost. If you are not trying to reach Pookie and Ray Ray, than you don't need to know Hip Hop. Or if you are not trying to reach Bubba and Jim Bob, you don't have to know Country music. But if you have a specific target audience, you must study what is appealing to that audience and find a way to relate to them.
This is where the SDA church in America has been failing. It refuses to acknowledge the new cultural paradigm that is in place and shift its evangelist paradigm to be more effective.
We must be knowledgeable in as many areas as possible. This allows us to be informed when we speak against evil and it allows us to know what is redeemable in any situation or culture. Failure to educate ourselves makes us look like fanatics and thereby misrepresents Christ.
I was reading chapter 4 in Dr. Hanna’s book and I appreciate the clarification on the teaching of Scripture on “science.” I was very interested to discover that when the Bible talks about science, it is actually focusing on knowledge in general.
This is also true with it comes to partial knowledge. Partial knowledge is true knowledge, but not all the facts are there yet. We shouldn’t throw it out just because we don’t have all the answers. If that there so, how much of the scriptures would we throw out under that same principle?
I think we need to plead with God for the discernment necessary to tell the truth from falsehood and for a willingness to realize that even though we do not have all the answers, there still is truth in partial knowledge.
I was reading chapter 4 in Dr. Hanna’s book and I appreciate the clarification on the teaching of Scripture on “science.” I was very interested to discover that when the Bible talks about science, it is actually focusing on knowledge in general.
This is also true with it comes to partial knowledge. Partial knowledge is true knowledge, but not all the facts are there yet. We shouldn’t throw it out just because we don’t have all the answers. If that there so, how much of the scriptures would we throw out under that same principle?
I think we need to plead with God for the discernment necessary to tell the truth from falsehood and for a willingness to realize that even though we do not have all the answers, there still is truth in partial knowledge.
It has been very interesting to see the discussion that has come out of Chapter 4 and the “to and fro” concept that is being proposed. On the one hand, I agree with the one brother who suggested we should be “cautious” when exploring secular ideas and concepts. There are those among us who employ forms of higher criticism and reject traditional Christian ideas. On the other hand, I also agree with the brother who suggested that “it is important to have the widest range of knowledge possible in order to have a clear understanding of the world in which we operate.” But to what ends. Would it be wise to visit the brothel to see how the prostitute lives so that we can evangelize to her better? Or, to use a similar analogy as the brother, should I attend a rap concert so that I can better evangelize to “Pookie and Ray Ray” (I think I found a name for my first born). In essence, what I’m getting at is a balance between the two. I doubt Dr. Hanna would phrase it like this, but my understanding is that the secular knowledge should be used and consulted as a source only inasmuch as it furthers our understanding of scripture. With that, we must have Scripture and Christ as our foundation for sacred and secular knowledge. I am of course not suggesting using any form of higher criticism here. We must always view the world and the things within it through the lens of the Christ of Scripture.
The issue of going to and fro from sacred to secular knowledge has indeed caused some discussion. It is important to point out that, by recommending secular knowledge, I am not recommending immersion in the knowledge of sin.
I simply mean to point out that the knowledge of the cosmos is a general revelation of God. Proper understanding of Christ, Scripture, and nature will lead us away from sin to the righteousness.
"But thou, O Daniel , shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end:many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased." (Dan.12:4).This most profound statement encapsulates the idea that even in earth's last hours an increase in the sacred and secular knowledge will be an experience of God's believers. As the people of God increase in their understanding of the prophecies of Daniel, they will in turn impact the environment they live in. Dr. Hanna's welcomed approach to the increase in sacred and secular knowledge is a realistic one. He forwards the idea that our increase of knowledge will not be in a selfish sense, but there will be a willingness to share so that others may be edified. The passage under scrutiny reveals that we will go "to and fro." The learned author has revealed that this "to and fro" is not limited to scripture only; but we must go "to and fro" from Christ to scripture to nature in order to understand scripture better.This perspective is amplified by Christ in John 5:39-40, where Christ implored his hearers to "search the Scriptures for in them you think you have eternal life."Then he proceeded to say "And you will not come to me that you might have life.This idea of going to and fro is deeply embedded in this passage. Christ here suggests that we should search the Scriptures, but we must not stop there we should come to HIM so that he who is the revealer of all secrets can open to us the reservoir of his grace and truth. And after we have come to Him , we can proceed to teach others about his will for them. So let the scripture speak.Let the living Word speak, and as his thoughts are impressed on our minds we will shine like the son.And as Paul declares in Col. 3:16 the word of Christ will dwell in us richly in all wisdom.
Those engaged in a "to and fro" relationship between sacred and secular knowledge are forced to grabble with the Christ & Culture debate as inaugurated by Richard Niebuhr. Those who see a major tension between sacred and secular knowledge seldom venture "to and fro" because the two are as opposite as chalk and cheese (Tertullian's 'what has Jerusalem to do with Athens?'). On the other extreme are those who reject a boxy approach to the classification of sacred and secular. Which is to say that the sacred is the result of a God-centered interpretation we place on events and ideas, not an intrinsic characteristic which ideas and events possess.
Both expressions of the the "to and fro" relationship are unhealthy for the Biblical Christian - the 1st because of the roadblock it creates in engaging the world for Christ and the 2nd because it fails to recognize Scripture for the reference point it claims to be.
As we run to and fro between the spiritual and sacred, how does the author propose we avoid both extremes?
Some refuse to pay attention to Scripture and Cosmos because of an exclusive understanding of the Scripture principle. This leads to their overlooking the fact of general revelation in the cosmos. This oversight can be corrected by paying attention to the fact that Scripture calls for a holistic and inclusive understanding of revelation.
Others refuse pay attention to Scripture and Cosmos because they reject the Scripture principle. This leads then to overlook the unique role of Scripture as the final standard for Christian theological interpretation of general revelation in the cosmos. This oversight can be corrected by paying attention to the way Scripture illuminates the cosmos.
We cannot prove to persons in both groups to pay attention to Scripture and the cosmos. At the same time, we can present evidence from Scripture and from general revelation that supports this approach.
According to Scripture, the Holy Spirit assists persons to understand and respond to the evidence. At the same time, free human beings have the ability to choose to refuse to accept the evidence.
20 comments:
I would like to comment just briefly on a few of the major points which Dr. Hanna outlined in chapter four of his book. First, I will comment on the increase of knowledge which is taking place. I am interested in the idea the author present and how he applied his biblical and wholestic framework to the concept of increasing spiritual knowledge. Often times, one focuses on a single aspect of God’s revelation, perhaps the scriptures or Christ. However, the wholistic model expresses that not only are all three necessary, but that all three are interconnected one with another. This brings up the other point in the chapter that I found revealing. That is, the section which spoke of the need to increase spiritual and secular knowledge. To gain a more perfect view of God we must go “to and fro” between Christ, the scriptures, and the cosmos. Being connected as they are, we cannot afford to become content in any one area. Finally, I would like to bring up a point that came up in class a while back. The idea that we have properly interpreted scripture, and thus become complacent in our reading and studying of it, is in actuality a kind of close-mindedness. In sight of this, the author, and I agree, that a constant “to and fro” method is necessary if we are to more fully understand the three revelations of God.
9/23/2006 7:27 PM
I was blessed and challenged by your idea that I have a responsibility to improve not only my spiritual understanding but also my secular knowledge. You state that, "Unfortunately many Christians shirk their responsibility to increase spiritual knowledge." I have felt a pull from both extremes at different times to pursue one to the neglect of the other. I was challenged to find a balance where I seek to gain as much of both as I am able.
I was challenged by a preacher a few years back, regarding ministry, to "find the place where theology and real life intersect and stay there." I loved your idea regarding relavancy in the Bible that you shared in class. Im not sure it was in your book but it is related. You said that the Bible is relavant and we dont have to make it relavant, we just need to discover how it is relavant, and if our theology is not relavant we might not be preaching the right thing. That is my paraphrase of your words, hope that is what you really said and not what I read into it.
I came away with the idea that I need to immurse myself in Christ as He is revealed in the Bible and also be "in the world". "In the world" means to me that I need to be involved in regular life which includes knowing more than just theology. Thanks for the help.
9/17/2006 10:34 PM
I am reminded about my undergraduate schooling. Some people would complain that they have to take all the generals to graduate. But the argument against that is that it is important to have a well-rounded education. I think that this book makes a good case that we need to have a well-rounded or wholistic approach to life. It is easy to for people to get so focused on the Bible, that they leave Jesus and others whom it is their task to reach out of their lives. It can also be a trap for some people to talk about Jesus and give their own ideas about life without consulting the Bible. Let us learn to integrate faith with learning so we go to school we are learning this knowledge not just to get a certificate and move on, but so that we may learn better to live a “wholistic life that is Biblical, Christ-centered and relevant to the world” as the author of the book would put it.”
I like the suggestion that we need to go to and fro between the Bible and Christ. This helps us to remember who the whole Bible points to and who is our reason for living. And the suggestion to go to and fro between the Bible and the world is good for remembering that the Bible shows how we should live in the world, and the same time we need to identify with people in order to show them Jesus.
9/27/2006 4:29 PM
This comment is based upon pages 55 and 56 of the Cosmic of Christ. You have written that we as followers of Christ should focus on increasing knowledge every opportunity that we get. “The students should improve every moment to increase their knowledge, that they may put it to practical use as laborers together with God for the help and blessing of their fellow men.” (page 56, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture.) I believe that this is something that we don’t do as much as we should. I have a feeling that as a society we’ve become more reliant on visual entertainment instead of just studying and reading the scripture. We have become too lazy mentally, that more individuals would rather watch a movie than read a book. This is one way that the devil has hit the people of God. This is why I agree with your statement that we should take every opportunity to increase our knowledge of God through scripture and through experience from witnessing. I believe this is a discipline that must be adopted in order to be followers of Christ. Our understanding of Christ and his gospel, based on Scripture, is our spiritual food on this earth. As we grow more in the knowledge of Christ, we adopt his nature. This is why I am in the Seminary!
9/27/2006 8:07 PM
I have really appreciated the detailed search into the relationships between Christ, Scripture, and the Cosmos. The holistic approach to these three Revelations of God places a checks-and-balances system on the human understanding of God. In my own life I have seen Christians place either too much or too little emphasis on their own experience as opposed to Scripture, and Hanna’s book has helped me to see the necessary balance. Presenting this material in light of Daniel 12, Hanna shows the importance of increasing knowledge, both secular and spiritual, in order to obtain a fuller faith in Christ. I contrast this with some Christians’ fear of polluting their faith with secular knowledge. Considering the Cosmos and everything in it and about it as God’s dear creation, I agree with Hanna and believe we must move forward with our experiences and observations in and about the world, always comparing these new findings with what we read in the Word of God in Scripture.
Regarding the primary model presented in the book, I wonder where the Church, the collection of individual Christians, fits into the picture. My question arises in terms of evangelism with the thought that we as Christians do not really “reveal” God to those around us, but rather point to God’s own self-revelation. It is not up to us to make up anything new about God but simply to attract others to the already-existing God through Christ, Scripture, and the Cosmos. With this in mind, a popular saying tells that we might be the only Jesus some people see. So is the Church an aspect of Christ in the book’s model? Or is the Church a part of the Cosmos as God’s human creation? One could also consider the Church – meaning God’s people throughout history – an aspect of Scripture because God used a certain chosen of these people in the revelation process with the hopeful intention of saving all humanity. Perhaps the answer is all three.
9/30/2006 9:09 PM
I am struggling with the understanding of the words "sacred" and "secular", I think. It seems like there are some things that are not beneficial for me to increase my knowledge of. I understand the quest for knowledge to be an intensely spiritual endeavor, and there are types of knowledge that should be avoided because they are detrimental to my spiritual connection with God. This can be most obvioulsy demonstrated by the account of Adam and Eve and the Tree of Knowledge. It was not beneficial for them to obtain the knowledge that the serpent had presented before them as attainable. It can also be demonstrated in Paul's words, "All things are permissable for me, but all are not beneficial". In other words, when we talk of the importance of increasing in "secular" knowledge, or acknowledging the mere reality of that increase, we need to distinguish between what is beneficial for us to know and what is destructive.
At the same time, I want to acknowledge that it IS important to increase in secular knowledge because it does allow us as witnesses and ministers of the Gospel to maintain our relevance to the world around us. God created us as living souls - having a combination of spiritual and natural (or however you want to describe it). Sin has created a terrible disunity between those apsects of our nature, and I think it is important to connect the two and to help others to do the same in the context of biblical truth.
As I was read chapter 4, one section and specifically one quote, caught my attention. On page 62 in quoting Counsels to Teachers by Ellen White the author states, “above all other people on earth, the man [the person] whose mind is enlightened by the word of God will feel that he [or she] must give himself [or herself] to greater diligence in the perusal of the Bible, and a diligent study of the sciences.” Imagine the study of sciences and the natural world around us being considered as part of our Christian responsibility! This gives further validity to the threefold revelations of God, which point to each other in their own unique primacies. In other words, in the above quote Ellen White is saying that deep study of Scripture leads us to desire a deeper understanding of the revelation of God in creation, i.e. the sciences.
I have often questioned the strong delineation that we place as Christians between the ‘secular’ and the ‘sacred.’ Frequently, the marks and rational seem contrived, as we send mixed messages of what can contain ‘truth’ to our young people [and people of all ages for that matter!]. I believe that this separation of all things into two distinct categories is not found in Scripture, or in Ellen White. In another quote from this chapter she says, “all nature expresses the law of God, but in our physical structure Jehovah has written His law with His own finger upon every thrilling nerve, upon every living fiber, and upon every organ of the body,” p. 61. You find in the Bible the separation between the ‘law of sin’ and the ‘law of righteousness’ and also the ‘sinful man’ and ‘man of God.’ Also there are many times in the human experience where one sees that there are two powers fighting within them for their allegiance. [Romans 7:15-17] In the realm of the sacred there are many other times when something or more often someone is set aside for a holy use and becomes sacred.
The dictionary defines secular as, “of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.”
I would argue that nothing is ‘secular,’ in the way that it is being used as the opposite of sacred. We, as humans, can have a tendency to compartmentalize our lives and draw boundaries that mark off where God is allowed to ‘show up’ or reveal Godself to us. Often the view is that when we go to church, the place is holy and we expect a revelation of God there. However, when we’re driving through frustrating traffic, clearly the situation is not holy and we don’t expect God to be concerned about revealing anything to us in that scenario. According to the revelations of God – Christ, Scripture and Nature [Creation] – God wants to show up everywhere and to show humanity who God is! Whether in the common or the elaborate, God is seeking to reveal Godself to us and that means through science, nature, Christianity community or even some things that would surprise us or make us uncomfortable.
Praise the Lord.
--Tara VinCross
By Tim Perenich
I believe we need to be cautious about going "to and fro" from sacred to secular. The idea is that the bible is incomplete and that we need to find the rest of God's knowledge in the secular realm is not all that it is cracked up to be. This thinking is dangerous. The bible is sufficient for all things, I am not espousing fundamentalism, but what I mean is that the principles of the scriptures prevade every aspect of life. And by being familiar with them leads into true knowledge.
Long ago in the history of our denomination a debate was to be had with representatives from our Church and representatives from the science community on the merits of evolution. At that time, one of our ablest apologist, Francis D. Nichol was sent with other to debate the evolutionist. Some in our church did not like the choice of Nichol, they felt that we should send one of our bretheren who had been trained in evolutionary thought. In other words they wanted to send one of our members who had attended schools where evolution was a part of the curiculm. F.D. Nichol, had attended SDA schools his whole life and was not familiar with evolution at all, yet he knew his bible and was a God fearing man. When Nichol received word of what he was to do, he and his delegation went to the best public library and solicited the leading authorities on evolution, for weeks he and others poured over countless volumes, taking careful notes and analyzing arguments. Finally when the debate came, Nichol put a clinic on. The secular moderators and observes all admited that Nichol had presented his case persuasively and clearly. According to all he had won his part of the debate. The point I make in telling you this, is that we don't need to go to the world to make our knowledge complete we need to follow Jesus, he will give us the wisdom we need and the ability to evaluate, learn, and live in the world around us. Remember the "fear of the Lord is the begining of wisdom."
The concept of going to and fro from “sacred” Scripture to “secular” cosmos, as outlined in my book, does not indicate that Scripture is incomplete. The Bible is a sufficient rule of faith, practice, and knowledge, as I write in my book. I agree that biblical principles pervade all things. At the same time, I also write that the Bible is not a textbook on all subjects.
The Bible teaches (1) that we may learn from the world and (2) that we may teach the world. First, the Bible supports a study of the world of God’s creation. Speak to the earth and she will teach you (Job 12:8). Second, the Bible also gives us the tools to correct “the vain, deceitful, and traditional philosophy of the rudiments of the world” (Col 2:8).
The case of F. D. Nichol supports my point. Based on biblical principles he was able to study evolution as part of his preparation to defend the biblical perspective in which he was already well trained.
Martin Hanna
I am surprised by the comment that we should search after secular as well as spiritual knowledge. Many conservative Christians would argue that the increase in spiritual knowledge is necessary while the secular will rot the mind. Yet those same conservative Christians recognize that there is still a necessity for them to increase even in secular knowledge. New technology is impacting our lives on a daily basis. The way we buy our groceries, interacting and utilizing the internet, home security systems are all examples of how we cannot continue to be ignorant of increasing in secular knowledge. We must stay in contact with what is going on in our world for purposes of practicality and even safety. Not being aware of recalls on foods, , and dangerous products can be detrimental. That doesn't mean we need to increase our knowledge of every evil & wicked thing under the sun. Why do we feel it necessary to learn secular knowledge for the purpose of practical every day living, but when it comes to the gospel, we must be outdated and stagnant. Why can’t we increase in secular knowledge for the purpose of more clearly relating the gospel to the people in our secular world? I have come to realize that there is a great deal of postmodern thinking in me. When I became an SDA Christian, I suppressed it when it came to matters of faith for fear that I would dishonor Christ. Now I am beginning to realize that God can use my questions, secular knowledge, & postmodern ways of thinking to strengthen my faith in scripture and better reach the people in the world I live.
Jeff Donaldson
By Steven Gusse
I agree with the importance of secular knowledge for the Christian work and for relevancy in our world. The problem is with how we implement the learning of it in our children. It seems like we either discount the problems that secular science creates and don't teach them, or don't teach them about the problems to try to protect them from these ideas. The person grows up and then is finally exposed to them. They usually learn these things from a non-christian source that is highly credible and it can rock their faith.
Wouldn't it be better to learn about these problems from a christian source that can guide them through other possible interpretations of the problems and that can show scientific problems to non-christian interpretations.
Most of the science that is published and taught is non-christian. I really appreciate learning science from a honest Christian point of view. I agree with Ellen White when she says we need more Christians to study science and influence the scientific community, but it is not easy. Like Lot in Sodom and Gomorrah, your out numbered.
Hanna gives a quote by Ellen White where she says that "God desires His workers to gain daily a better understanding of how to reason logically from cause to affect, arriving at wise, safe conclusions."
I personally come from a computer science/mathematics background. In these fields I was trained to think logically and how to prove something is true. Because of my training, I often see logical errors people's aurguments that they may not see. I'm not saying that I am always right, but I feel that my previous training is put to good use in studying and teaching God's Word.
10/31/2006
Chapter 4 of The Cosmic Christ of Scripture presents a wholistic model of knowledge that is tightly tied in with the concept of going “to and fro” to obtain knowledge. I appreciate the way that Dr. Hanna not only implies in his book that we must go “to and fro” to increase our knowledge in Scripture, but that we must also go “to and fro” between Scripture and God’s other revelations. Having knowledge of Scripture without centering it on knowledge of what Christ has done for me is useless. Likewise, having knowledge of Scripture without grounding that knowledge in the cosmos, or nature, is useless. God speaks to us in our time and place through His revelations. Scripture gives me the ultimate guiding principles for my life. But I must take those principles and allow them to help me understand Christ and to apply what He has done for me to my own life. I must also take those principles into the world around me (including all the secular knowledge that I am bombarded with every day) and apply them so that Christ and Scripture make a difference in my own everyday existence. If I can’t make a “to and fro” connection between Christ, Scripture, and the world around me (in other words, a connection between sacred and secular knowledge), then each of these revelations of God will remain isolated and totally useless to me in my life.
Brent Wilson
Inresponse to David Moore's comments:
"I am struggling with the understanding of the words 'sacred' and 'secular', I think. It seems like there are some things that are not beneficial for me to increase my knowledge of."
I believe that it is important to have the widest range of knowledge possible in order to have a clear understanding of the world in which we operate. I have heard the analogy about knowing the geniune so well that you don't need to study the fake, but that doesn't apply in practical situations.
If I have no knoweldge of what Chingy and 50 Cent are saying in their music, I cannot effectively and accurately combat their "teachings". God's ideal was that man would not be exposed to evil, however, we have been and because of that, we need to have at least "book" knowledge of it, especially as ministers to the lost. If you are not trying to reach Pookie and Ray Ray, than you don't need to know Hip Hop. Or if you are not trying to reach Bubba and Jim Bob, you don't have to know Country music. But if you have a specific target audience, you must study what is appealing to that audience and find a way to relate to them.
This is where the SDA church in America has been failing. It refuses to acknowledge the new cultural paradigm that is in place and shift its evangelist paradigm to be more effective.
We must be knowledgeable in as many areas as possible. This allows us to be informed when we speak against evil and it allows us to know what is redeemable in any situation or culture. Failure to educate ourselves makes us look like fanatics and thereby misrepresents Christ.
That's My Two Lincolns®
E. L. Jones, Jr.
I was reading chapter 4 in Dr. Hanna’s book and I appreciate the clarification on the teaching of Scripture on “science.” I was very interested to discover that when the Bible talks about science, it is actually focusing on knowledge in general.
When Paul was talking about avoiding philosophy, he was talking about avoiding false teachings or false knowledge not all philosophy. I think that is very important to remember. Quite often I have encountered people who have as the old cliché says “thrown the baby out with the bath water” when it comes to secular knowledge. As Dr. Hanna so kindly pointed out, we need to keep the true knowledge and throw out the false.
This is also true with it comes to partial knowledge. Partial knowledge is true knowledge, but not all the facts are there yet. We shouldn’t throw it out just because we don’t have all the answers. If that there so, how much of the scriptures would we throw out under that same principle?
I think we need to plead with God for the discernment necessary to tell the truth from falsehood and for a willingness to realize that even though we do not have all the answers, there still is truth in partial knowledge.
Catherine Parris
I was reading chapter 4 in Dr. Hanna’s book and I appreciate the clarification on the teaching of Scripture on “science.” I was very interested to discover that when the Bible talks about science, it is actually focusing on knowledge in general.
When Paul was talking about avoiding philosophy, he was talking about avoiding false teachings or false knowledge not all philosophy. I think that is very important to remember. Quite often I have encountered people who have as the old cliché says “thrown the baby out with the bath water” when it comes to secular knowledge. As Dr. Hanna so kindly pointed out, we need to keep the true knowledge and throw out the false.
This is also true with it comes to partial knowledge. Partial knowledge is true knowledge, but not all the facts are there yet. We shouldn’t throw it out just because we don’t have all the answers. If that there so, how much of the scriptures would we throw out under that same principle?
I think we need to plead with God for the discernment necessary to tell the truth from falsehood and for a willingness to realize that even though we do not have all the answers, there still is truth in partial knowledge.
Catherine Parris
It has been very interesting to see the discussion that has come out of Chapter 4 and the “to and fro” concept that is being proposed. On the one hand, I agree with the one brother who suggested we should be “cautious” when exploring secular ideas and concepts. There are those among us who employ forms of higher criticism and reject traditional Christian ideas. On the other hand, I also agree with the brother who suggested that “it is important to have the widest range of knowledge possible in order to have a clear understanding of the world in which we operate.” But to what ends. Would it be wise to visit the brothel to see how the prostitute lives so that we can evangelize to her better? Or, to use a similar analogy as the brother, should I attend a rap concert so that I can better evangelize to “Pookie and Ray Ray” (I think I found a name for my first born).
In essence, what I’m getting at is a balance between the two. I doubt Dr. Hanna would phrase it like this, but my understanding is that the secular knowledge should be used and consulted as a source only inasmuch as it furthers our understanding of scripture. With that, we must have Scripture and Christ as our foundation for sacred and secular knowledge. I am of course not suggesting using any form of higher criticism here. We must always view the world and the things within it through the lens of the Christ of Scripture.
The issue of going to and fro from sacred to secular knowledge has indeed caused some discussion. It is important to point out that, by recommending secular knowledge, I am not recommending immersion in the knowledge of sin.
I simply mean to point out that the knowledge of the cosmos is a general revelation of God. Proper understanding of Christ, Scripture, and nature will lead us away from sin to the righteousness.
Martin Hanna.
"But thou, O Daniel , shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end:many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased." (Dan.12:4).This most profound statement encapsulates the idea that even in earth's last hours an increase in the sacred and secular knowledge will be an experience of God's believers. As the people of God increase in their understanding of the prophecies of Daniel, they will in turn impact the environment they live in. Dr. Hanna's welcomed approach to the increase in sacred and secular knowledge is a realistic one. He forwards the idea that our increase of knowledge will not be in a selfish sense, but there will be a willingness to share so that others may be edified. The passage under scrutiny reveals that we will go "to and fro." The learned author has revealed that this "to and fro" is not limited to scripture only; but we must go "to and fro" from Christ to scripture to nature in order to understand scripture better.This perspective is amplified by Christ in John 5:39-40, where Christ implored his hearers to "search the Scriptures for in them you think you have eternal life."Then he proceeded to say "And you will not come to me that you might have life.This idea of going to and fro is deeply embedded in this passage.
Christ here suggests that we should search the Scriptures, but we must not stop there we should come to HIM so that he who is the revealer of all secrets can open to us the reservoir of his grace and truth. And after we have come to Him , we can proceed to teach others about his will for them. So let the scripture speak.Let the living Word speak, and as his thoughts are impressed on our minds we will shine like the son.And as Paul declares in Col. 3:16 the word of Christ will dwell in us richly in all wisdom.
As we go to and fro ,May this be our experience.
Those engaged in a "to and fro" relationship between sacred and secular knowledge are forced to grabble with the Christ & Culture debate as inaugurated by Richard Niebuhr. Those who see a major tension between sacred and secular knowledge seldom venture "to and fro" because the two are as opposite as chalk and cheese (Tertullian's 'what has Jerusalem to do with Athens?'). On the other extreme are those who reject a boxy approach to the classification of sacred and secular. Which is to say that the sacred is the result of a God-centered interpretation we place on events and ideas, not an intrinsic characteristic which ideas and events possess.
Both expressions of the the "to and fro" relationship are unhealthy for the Biblical Christian - the 1st because of the roadblock it creates in engaging the world for Christ and the 2nd because it fails to recognize Scripture for the reference point it claims to be.
As we run to and fro between the spiritual and sacred, how does the author propose we avoid both extremes?
Some refuse to pay attention to Scripture and Cosmos because of an exclusive understanding of the Scripture principle. This leads to their overlooking the fact of general revelation in the cosmos. This oversight can be corrected by paying attention to the fact that Scripture calls for a holistic and inclusive understanding of revelation.
Others refuse pay attention to Scripture and Cosmos because they reject the Scripture principle. This leads then to overlook the unique role of Scripture as the final standard for Christian theological interpretation of general revelation in the cosmos. This oversight can be corrected by paying attention to the way Scripture illuminates the cosmos.
We cannot prove to persons in both groups to pay attention to Scripture and the cosmos. At the same time, we can present evidence from Scripture and from general revelation that supports this approach.
According to Scripture, the Holy Spirit assists persons to understand and respond to the evidence. At the same time, free human beings have the ability to choose to refuse to accept the evidence.
Martin Hanna.
Post a Comment