Recently I commented on a comment over at Messy’s and got into a lively discussion about the application of Jesus’ angry over-turning of the tables and chasing out of the money changers and traders from the temple court. According to “Sunday School Teacher”, this is a clear principle that church facilities should not be used for any commercial purposes. Especially anathema in Teacher’s mind is the fact that some “megachurches” which she euphemistically characterizes as belonging to the “Merging Church” - “the church that merges, blends in with the secular society, featuring McDonalds and Starbucks in the church facilities” a practice that she calls “bizarre,” “irreverent,” on par with “occult practices” and “other junk.”

I lightheartedly commented that this is probably overstepping the boundaries of constructive critique and may also have been an example of over-zealous application of the scriptural principle taught in this passage. As the discussion continued, I began to realize that this was less about the megachurches and their approach to “doing church” (whether or not they actually have McDonald’s, Starbucks and bowling alleys on their campuses, as alleged, is arguable, as I certainly haven’t seen evidences of these the few times I have been on their premises, although I have seen books and gifts stores, cafeterias and even sandwich shops), and more about what we mean by “secular” and “sacred.”

First of all, is Jesus’ fury directed at the moneychangers and traders because of their conflation of the sacred with the secular? What if they had lined their tables outside of the temple? Would that have been acceptable? Similarly, if the McDonald’s franchise had been next door to the church, the bowling alley across from the church and the Starbucks around the block, would that have escaped the indictment of compromising the sacred with secular? What if the shops were not run by the church? What if these stores were owned and run by other individuals and their existence were simply for the benefit and convenience of those who spend so much of their time at the church, especially on hectic weekends? So, is the question about ownership and/or function or purpose? Or perhaps we are asking all the wrong questions and the must return to another, more fundamental question regarding the relationship between sacred and secular.

What exactly is sacred? Is it the church building? Is it the sanctuary? Is it what happens within its walls at particular times during the week? What does it mean when the Scriptures allude to the holy, the holy of holies? And what is the significance of the curtain that prohibits entrance of ordinary people to the holiest place, breaking apart when Jesus triumphantly “gave up the ghost” on the cross? Is there, or better, ought there be, a division between sacred and secular in the lives of those who are wholly devoted followers of Jesus?