Syncretism

(Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, revised edition; forthcoming 2000)

Used by permission of Baker Book House Company, © 2000. All rights to this material are reserved. Materials are not to be distributed to other web locations for retrieval, published in other media, or mirrored at other sites without written permission from Baker Book House Company.

Introduction. The first known use of the term syncretism is in the area of political pragmatism. Plutarch (c. 46-120 A.D.), the Greek biographer and moralist, referred to the banding together of the normally divided peoples of Crete to face a common external enemy as sunkrtismos (Moralia 490b). Much later Erasmus (1466-1536), the Renaissance humanist and scholar, used it to speak positively of the coming together of disparate points of view. George Calixtus (1586-1656) developed a school of thought based on a system of principles known as syncretism in which he attempted to harmonize the sects of the Protestants and ultimately the whole church. From the early 1600s, however, the term in Christian writings has generally referred to the replacement or dilution of the essential truths of the Gospel through the incorporation of non-Christian elements. Examples of syncretism in this sense range from the worship of materialism in modern Western churches to the use of spiritistic power and protection in African churches, from the rituals of the Night of the Dead in Latin America to the continuance of untransformed ancestral practices in Asian Christian households. The fact that syncretism can be found in every culture and epoch where the Church had existed serves as a caution against naively thinking that its eradication will be easily accomplished or that our own church will never include syncretistic ideas or practices.

The study of syncretism involves at least three levels. First is the uncovering of the actual practices, phenomena, or idea(s) under consideration. The primary concern is to discover what is actually happening or being taught. On the second level, we seek to understand and interpret the practice, phenomenon, or idea. At this level we seek understanding by asking questions concerning the causes, purposes, and directions of the phenomena being examined. What is the cause? Why is this particular form of syncretism taking place? What function is it serving? What are the signs and symbols of it, and what significance do these carry in the context? What direction is the syncretistic flow going, and what impact on the local expression of the Christian faith may we anticipate coming out of it? The final level of analysis, built on the first two levels, is to determine the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the practice or idea under consideration. The foundation for this analysis is the set of standards by which an evaluation is made, an issue of increasing complexity in the modern world which disparages any normative system, let alone one based on biblical absolutes. If, as we have proposed, syncretism is defined as a replacement or a dilution of essential elements of the Gospel, then it must stopped or reversed, and the method by which this is to be accomplished is almost as important as the accomplishment itself.

Biblical Discussion. Though the term itself is not found anywhere in the Bible, examples of religious syncretism are found in both Old and New Testaments. The theological foundation is found in the first commandment: we are to love God alone and serve Him with all that we are (Deut. 5:1-6:5). Expanding on the significance of this, God gave Israel basic guidelines against religious intermingling, including strong warnings against borrowing practices from the Canaanites whose gods would become a snare (Exod. 23:23-33; Deut. 18:10-14). Indeed, the Canaanites were cast out of the land by God because they defiled themselves through their actions (Lev. 18:24-25; 20:23). The Israelites were warned of similar judgment if they followed Canaan's example (Lev. 18:26-30; 20:22). The practices that were condemned were not simple cultural acts (such as trading practices; Gen. 23). Rather, they were defiant acts invested with religious significance because they did not honor God as the Sovereign King of the world.

Sadly, the Israelites did not heed God's warnings. As early as the time of the judges, they "would turn their back and act more corruptly than their fathers, in following other gods to serve them and bow down to them" (Jud. 2:19). Things were no different after the establishment of the monarchy, when king after king brought in condemned religious practices. The kings set the pace, and the people all too freely followed them into shrine prostitution (1 Kings 14:24), intermarriage (Ezra 9:1-2), idolatry (Psalms 106:35-39), human sacrifice, and witchcraft (2 Kings 17:16-17). No other statement in the OT so concisely summarizes both the nature of syncretism and Israel's participation in it than that of 2 Kings 17:41: "Even while these people were worshiping the LORD, they were serving their idols" (NIV). Though their actions were condemned by the prophets (2 Kings 17:7-14; Isa.2:6; Jer. 25:5; Ezek. 5:11), they still did not listen and God eventually brought the judgment promised through Moses (Deut. 31:14-21; 2 Kings 17:7-41).

The OT story, however, is not one of complete failure. David, Hezekiah, Josiah, Nehemiah, and Ezra stand out as leaders who closely followed God's Law. The prophets continually stood against the prevailing attitude of religious compromise. For example, Elijah confronted the Hebrew followers of Baal on Mt. Carmel (1 Kings 18:16-40). Jeremiah condemned idolatrous practices in spite of being repeatedly punished for it (Jer. 19:1-20:6; 26:1-16; 37:1-21; 38:1-13). Daniel ignored the decree prohibiting prayer to anyone but King Darius (Dan. 6). God's deliverance through the ordeal and the demise of Daniel's enemies proved that Daniel had chosen the correct course.

In the New Testament, the danger of syncretism intensified. The Roman Empire was filled with religious interpenetration, and in numerous instances the early church faced religious imports into the faith. The church itself was not completely free of these ideas, seen in the disciples' declaration that Peter's spirit was knocking at the door (possibly a type of spirit guardian double; Acts 12:15) and the leadership of the young church debating the extent to which Gentile converts had to adopt Jewish customs in order to come to saving faith (Acts 15). This issue came to a head when Paul was forced to rebuke Peter publicly for separating himself from Gentile believers when Judiazers arrived on the scene (Gal. 2:11-21). Hebrews was written to a group that struggled with the temptation to return to the Law, which would be a denial of the reality of the Gospel (Heb. 5:11-6:12; 10:19-39). Warnings against teachers, doctrines, and practices with syncretistic tendencies are sprinkles throughout the epistles (e.g., 1 Cor. 10:20; 2 Cor. 11:13-15; Gal. 1:6-9; 3:1-6; Col. 2:8-23; 1 Tim. 1:3; 6:3; 2 Pet. 2:1; and 1 John 4:1-6).

In missionary outreach, the church faced the issue of local audiences trying to understand displays of the power of Christ within their own religious framework, a foundation for a syncretistic approach to the Gospel. Simon, coming out of a magical background, asked for power to lay hands on people so that the Holy Spirit would descend (Acts 8:9-24). The Lystrans thought that Paul and Barnabas were Zeus and Hermes after they healed a lame man. It was only with great difficulty that the disciples were able to restrain the Lystrans from offering sacrifices. Once their denial of divinity was understood, the crowd was easily stirred to turn and stone those they had so recently proclaimed gods (Acts 14:8-20)! The citizens of Malta considered Paul a god after he survived a snake-bite without any apparent harm (Acts 28:1-7), though Paul's reaction to this is not recorded. He was constrained to establish principles for handling food that has been offered to idols (1 Cor. 8) and dealing with special days (Rom. 14). He chided the Colossians for paying inappropriate attention to angels (Col. 2:13-19). John wrote to a church which was tempted to deny critical truths of the gospel (e.g., the existence of sin, 1 Jn. 1:8-10; that Jesus was not the Christ, 1 Jn. 2:22-27; that Christ was not flesh and blood, 1 Jn. 4:1-6). In Revelation, the church at Ephesus is commended for hating the practices of the Nicolaitans (Rev. 2:6), while the church at Pergamum is chastised for allowing some to hold the teaching of Balaam, "who kept teaching Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit acts of immorality" (Rev. 2:14).

The struggle of dealing with religious syncretism did not stop with the close of the canon. From its inception until the present, the church has faced questions of culture and religious practice that stand in contrast to the faith revealed in the Bible (see Visser 't Hooft's No Other Name for a brief historical synopsis).

Modern Discussion. In more recent discussion scholars involved in ecumenical circles have questioned the need for continuing to use syncretism in its traditional sense. Some feel that a successful reinterpretation is not worth the effort (P. Schineller, "Inculturation and Syncretism: What Is the Real Issue?"). Others have difficulties with the traditional meaning, but prefer redefinition to abandonment lest it continue in its confined conservative sense (Schreiter, "Defining Syncretism: An Interim Report"; Droogers in Dialogue and Syncretism). Some have already attempted to recast it more positively by broadening the definition (e.g., M. M. Thomas, "The Absoluteness of Jesus Christ and Christ-centred Syncretism"). Three significant issues arising out of the modern discussion deserve comment.

First, as a result of borrowing from outside of theological fields, the use of syncretism has been greatly expanded over the past twenty five years. In its broadest and most neutral sense, it is used to refer to the intermixing or interpenetration of two (or more) paradigms, traditions, or world views. Thus it is not limited to religious mixing; it can be used in relation to the mixing of cultures, religions, scientific outlooks, and ideologies. Basing their discussion on this definition, some missiologists note that virtually every expression of the Christian church around the world is permeated with syncretistic elements. An obvious problem with such a broad definition is that syncretism becomes an umbrella term that covers every cultural aspect of the church and loses all useful meaning in the process. In effect, the term traditionally used as one end of a spectrum has been transposed to be the entire spectrum, and has become so all-encompassing that it has lost any analytic value.

The second issue involves power. Recent discussions have challenged the assumption that it should be the missionary or theologian who has the sole power to declare a practice or idea syncretistic. It has been proposed that all too often new movements (or practices or theologies) which threaten the old power structure are labelled as syncretistic simply because of the threat they represent to those in power. The overgeneralized labeling of the African-initiated churches as syncretistic by the mainline churches in Africa may be cited as a case in point. This trend in modern discussion is helpful in noting the reality of power issues in the analysis of syncretism, but tends to downplay the importance of content more than is biblically appropriate. If we are to continue to develop a genuinely international intercultural partnership in the universal church, the evaluation of syncretistic practices cannot be left exclusively in the hands of those foreign to the culture and issues related to power can no longer be conveniently ignored by those in power. At the same time, however, the evaluative framework cannot be cast adrift from its biblical moorings.

A third issue is that of objectivity and how we define the 'other'. Third World theologians have noted how syncretistic the Western church appears to them. They ask who the judge is, and whether objectivity is possible. None of us think of ourselves as syncretistic--it is always the 'other' whose thinking incorporates inappropriate religious elements in the Gospel! The recent challenge involves the way in which we define ourselves by attaching labels to others (if 'they' are syncretistic, it implies that I am not). The challenge levelled is whether any of us can claim to have God's perspective, when we as human beings are culturally bound? This question is currently shaking the foundations of Western social sciences (which were built on the concept of the scientist being purely objective) and is spilling over into the whole intercultural arena, of which the current discussion on syncretism is but a small part. Such reflection of objectivity serves to remind us that we are not as objective as we would like to think we are, but it is typically built on an overtly relativistic foundation. It is true that we as human beings are cultural creatures, but it is also true that the Church has objective divine resources on which to draw, including the supracultural truths of Scripture and the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Suggested Guidelines. How, then, are we to think of syncretism? Though we cannot avoid the issue of definition, this cannot be settled by an examination of biblical uses, since the term is not used in the Bible. That, however, does not mean that the concept is not biblical (e.g., trinity is a thoroughly biblical concept, though it is not a biblical term). Scholarly discussion outside of evangelicalism has already moved in the direction of a broad-based definition (similar to the broadening of mission and evangelism), at least in part because there is a fear of retaining any negative or judgmental connotations of terms in the modern debate. However, in being broadened the term has become so diffused that it has lost all sense of descriptive power in a Christian context because every expression of every church (and even the Bible itself) is syncretistic, and will continue to be syncretistic by definition. Such a definition robs the term of analytic use and makes it meaningless, just as "mission" becomes meaningless when it refers to everything the Church does. Because syncretism conveys a significant biblical concept, and because this concept is of such critical importance to the integrity of the Church, it is imperative to retain the traditional meaning while acknowledging the shift that has taken place outside of evangelical circles.

Biblical revelation clearly indicates that syncretistic ideas and practices, as traditionally defined, are wrong. The foundation for their negative evaluation is the violation of the first commandment. This is a message that may be lost in the midst of the modern cries for abandoning absolutes through pluralistic tolerance. In claiming allegiance to Christ, the only standard on which the Christian can rely is the normative framework of the Scriptures. In saying this we are not ignoring the complexities raised by recent hermeneutical discussions. There are significant and thorny issues tied up in interpreting the Scriptures, but we cannot escape normative nature of the Bible as a foundation for Christian discussion and debate if we are to claim that we have surrendered to Christ's Lordship. While the Scriptures are the only normative source, we cannot overlook the vast array of Christian thinking available to us. The reservoir available is spread out over almost two millennia, and is the reflection of Christians from literally hundreds of cultures. We dare not neglect the rich resources of Christian history.

In addition to the historical wealth of the Church, we have the contemporary body of Christ, which is richer in geographic and ethnic representation than ever before in history. The determination of syncretism in a particular local context cannot be simply left in the hands of powerful outside interests; the local community must be empowered to take their role in keeping watch over themselves and their doctrines. Christians from the West must learn how to trust indigenous peoples to be able to follow God's leading and trust that the Spirit is fully capable of working through 'others' to maintain the purity of the church in a local context. At the same time, Christians of all cultures must open themselves up to partnership with Christians of other cultures, for often the insider's perspective is blinded by familiarity to that which might not be pleasing to God.

Finally, we must exercise great caution in using the label syncretism for practices or theological expressions which we do not understand. We must recognize that all Christians are in some sense a product of their desires, drives, backgrounds, and personal faith pilgrimages. None of us can escape the subjectivity of human existence, and humble recognition of this fact will facilitate greater sensitivity and a greater ability to faithfully discern syncretism in light of the normative standards of biblical revelation.

Bibliography: Carsten Colpe, "Syncretism," The Encyclopedia of Religion (1987); Gort, Vroom, Fernhout, Wessels, Dialogue and Syncretism: An Interdisciplinary Approach (1989); H. Kraemer, Religion and the Christian Faith (1938); Robert J. Schreiter, "Defining Syncretism: An Interim Report," International Bulletin of Missionary Research, 17:2 (1993): 50-3; W. A. Visser 't Hooft, No Other Name (1963).