It seems some would say there is no line between the sacred and the secular. This is quite a popular discussion over recent years. My confession is that I am quite tired of this sacred-versus-secular conversation. Why? Because, I think we are separating and discussing something that really is deeper than one dichotomy. Here is how I see it. The profane versus sacred, and the physical versus spiritual are the real dichotomies. We must still choose to hold some things “holy”– just like we do in marriage. And, we must realize that because of the Incarnation, physical is not disconnected to spiritual. So, can a place be spiritual? Physical is not something we just discard as computer minus the software, is it? Its more than that–our Savior is fully physical (human) and divine. Does our integration of sacred and secular degrade the importance of the holy? Or, is the abolishment of that line helpful?

Let me explain. When we say that there are some things that are holy—or set apart for God—we are saying that there are special days, times, and places we decide are God’s more than ours. A bank is set apart to deal with banking. A church is set apart as a place of worship—even if it is used as a basketball court on Monday. The idea that physical space is important and that the things physically created can be holy is something I believe in. A song can indeed be holy, right? It’s design, purpose, function, and beauty are all for the purpose of God’s more than mine. A secular song then can be for any purpose other than that. That difference does not mean God is not in the person who created each or that spirituality is not a part of both. It simply means that things set apart for worship are a specificjust like things for banking are. Being set apart for something sacred or holy then can be a building. What makes it holy is what we purpose for it to be. Should then there be things specific for our life of faith and worship?

If worship is everything then worship is nothing. We are always meant to be in a posture of worship through all we do, say, and think. But, is everything a “special” expression of that worship? When we come to the table and partake in communion, that surely is more than when I sit and have coffee with another person. Indeed, having coffee can still be a “sacramental” moment between your friends and God even though that the venue is other than the communion table. To separate something as holy does not mean the other is not spiritual! It just means that it is not sacred. We can find and connect to our Creator in any setting. We can worship at any time and place because of the Holy Spirit in us. Sacred and secular are a both-and way of living. We learn to worship in both a time and place only for God and live out that worship everywhere else. The two are connected because we are in both places. In other words, let’s not erase a line that is useful. Just like some acts are only for marriage, should not some times, places, and acts only be for God?

To get the full extent of his argument check out the full blog . . .

http://rkblog.com/blog/2015/10/does-modern-worship-fail-by-trashing-the-line-between-the-sacred-and-secular/

What do we mean when we say God is "holy"? By itself the word translated "holy" (qadosh) simply means "set apart, unique, distinct." Theologians have tried to improve on the translation, but we have nothing better than "holy."

The word for "holy" has a wide array of uses in the Bible, but essentially it describes anything that might be set apart for a specific reason. For example, a bowl set apart for use in temple ritual would be called "holy" and could not be used for ordinary or common meals (see Dan. 5:23). The understanding of the word is helped by a study of its antonym, "profane" (khol, from khalal), which refers to anything that is common, ordinary, or secular - not set apart.' What is common may be good and useful in various aspects of life-but it is not "holy," or set apart for God's use.

Allen Ross. “Recalling the Hope of Glory” (Kindle Locations 300-305). Kindle Edition.

Jesus seems to have eliminated the clean-unclean system of Jewish law. Mk 7:19 Jesus declares all foods clean!

- Paul teaches The law of love in the matter of food offered to idols. I Cor 10: 23 "All things are lawful. In v31 "do all to the glory of God"

Rom 14:5 "esteems a day' - v14 nothing unclean itself but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it is unclean. In v20 "everything is indeed clean

I am suggesting that Jesus and Paul in declaring all foods clean, were not saying everything was now sacred. In other words they were removing the ceremonial clean-unclean category (because of the New Covenant) but not the special-ordinary category. Clean and unclean had to do with Old Testament law and Jesus came to supersede that. Holy-common still existed because there was still the possibility that a person could treat one day special and others not. The Sabbath wasn't abolished by Jesus - its purpose was more clearly explained. It remained in the Jewish culture and in Christian communities. - KN