I had a quick question about your model of anatheism, particularly discerning between the secular & the sacred spheres of life. You make a big point of the necessity of a non-reductionist union between the sacred & the secular (which comes to a head on pp. 139-142) - a union in which the two come together without be absorbed into each other. An engagement which preserves distance.
Throughout the Anatheism, you discuss how to bring the sacred & the secular together into dialogue with one another, & you give several examples (Day, Gandhi, &c.); but you never discuss with the same rigour how one might keep them apart (at one point, which I cannot now find, you do give a few generic distinguishing features of the two spheres).
My question is if you think that it's possible to distinguish the sacred from the secular in a practical way in any given thing/action/life. 'Anatheism is the attempt to acknowledge the fertile tension between the [sacred and the secular], fostering creative cobelonging and "loving combat"' (141). Is it possible to discern where the fault lines lie in this tension or are the combatants so dependent upon each other that they make up every aspect of the world to the point that it's impossible to say 'That's secular' or 'This' sacred'?
-Gabriel
