Syncretism

[Rhamiel]

I have been thinking on the topic of Syncretism for a few weeks

there is the most basic forms of Syncretism
Voodoo, Santeria and other Afro-Caribbean religions that are a blend of Native American and African tribal religions

other people noted that some fringe Christian sects have a "Prosperity Gospel" that they described as being syncretistic in nature.
While I am not a fan of this shallow theology, I ever thought to describe it as such before.

Part of what I have had on my mind....
Ok, syncretism is when you mix two religions
It seems that in modern Western culture, we have a syncretism of Christianity and Secularism/Atheism
like people say they are Christian.... but then they say "well yeah I believe this... but practically we have to do it this way"
or the idea of Separation of Church and State... I am not saying that it is a bad idea.... but it seems like mixing Christianity?

also you have the flip side of issue
we have inculturation
the idea that you use parts of a culture that already exist to evangelize to it.
we can even see this in the Gospel according to St. John
with Jesus being called the "Word" in John 1 in Greek the "Logos"
even before the Gospels, Greek and Roman philosophy had the concept of the "Logos"
the pagan idea of Logos is like a cosmic mental pattern, linked to the that Plato had about Shapes
that the physical world conforms to patterns from some greater reality (I am probably not doing this concept justice)

so at what point does Inculteration turn into Syncretism?

here are the quotes that got me thinking about this more

That's deeply disturbing, I feel like that's warping Christianity into a type of tribal shamanism.

It is disturbing and they warped the Gospel and Christianity into a prosperity gospel, which is grotesque. On one hand it is basically religious

 

[Sketcher]

Part of what I have had on my mind....
Ok, syncretism is when you mix two religions
It seems that in modern Western culture, we have a syncretism of Christianity and Secularism/Atheism
like people say they are Christian.... but then they say "well yeah I believe this... but practically we have to do it this way"

I'd need a more specific example. What you seem to be alluding to is mere pragmatism, which itself isn't sinful.

or the idea of Separation of Church and State... I am not saying that it is a bad idea.... but it seems like mixing Christianity?

Not really, since the New Testament doesn't marry the two. What honestly sounds more syncretic to me is how the church seemed to marry the state after Christianity became officially tolerated.

also you have the flip side of issue
we have inculturation
the idea that you use parts of a culture that already exist to evangelize to it.
we can even see this in the Gospel according to St. John
with Jesus being called the "Word" in John 1 in Greek the "Logos"
even before the Gospels, Greek and Roman philosophy had the concept of the "Logos"
the pagan idea of Logos is like a cosmic mental pattern, linked to the that Plato had about Shapes
that the physical world conforms to patterns from some greater reality (I am probably not doing this concept justice)

so at what point does Inculteration turn into Syncretism?

Well, you have the medieval symbols of the Gospels as another example. I wouldn't call that syncretism. Adopting patron saints though, I would call syncretism.

 

[Gnarwhal]

In the context of your quotation of me, I think that in terms of syncretic religions, you might use a nut as an analogy.

You might say that in orthodox Christianity the shell and the meat of a nut are the same. You see an almond, you get an almond. But a syncretic religion, it's like opening up a walnut only to find a pistachio, and a rotted one at that.

In the case of Santeria, you have a belief system that's ostensibly Catholic, but has incorporated several tribal/indigenous beliefs into it which ultimately means that what they're practicing is not Catholicism. The same goes for the cult of Santa Muerte in Mexico. By that same token, with the Prosperity Gospel you have a product that is ostensibly Christian, but ultimately it's deviated too far from the gospel message to be considered properly Christian. It's nicely packaged in Christian language, but the central message has nothing to do with redemption, rather it supplants it with an egocentric theology that attempts to promote wealth and wellbeing.

So going with my "nut theory" (appropriate, right?), what I would consider qualifications for a syncretic religion would be something that appears to be the genuine article, but when you look at what's inside you realize that the heart of it all is completely misaligned with proper belief.

 

[Rhamiel]

Not really, since the New Testament doesn't marry the two. What honestly sounds more syncretic to me is how the church seemed to marry the state after Christianity became officially tolerated

hmmm arguable
while the New Testament does not have unity between church and state
but the New Testament was written when Israel was occupied by the pagan Roman Empire
we can see times when Israel was occupied by other pagan Empires, like the book of Daniel for example
Daniel was a court official for the King of Babylon
so their is Biblical precedent for being a good citizen when you are in a Pagan country... but that was never seen as the ideal
many modern Christians view separation of Church and State as ideal.

 

[Rhamiel]

I like the nut analogy Darth

 

[Sketcher]

hmmm arguable
while the New Testament does not have unity between church and state
but the New Testament was written when Israel was occupied by the pagan Roman Empire
we can see times when Israel was occupied by other pagan Empires, like the book of Daniel for example
Daniel was a court official for the King of Babylon
so their is Biblical precedent for being a good citizen when you are in a Pagan country... but that was never seen as the ideal
many modern Christians view separation of Church and State as ideal.

The ideal for Israel was having their independence, and being the good little theocracy God told them to be. So of course, Daniel's circumstance was not ideal. The New Testament however, has different orders for the church. Theocratic enforcement is incompatible with the Great Commission, since Jesus wants true converts.

 

[Rhamiel]

The ideal for Israel was having their independence, and being the good little theocracy God told them to be. So of course, Daniel's circumstance was not ideal. The New Testament however, has different orders for the church. Theocratic enforcement is incompatible with the Great Commission, since Jesus wants true converts.

ofcourse Jesus wants true converts
but you can also see similar themes in the Old Testament, that did not negate the idea of Israel having religion be a core part of the government/culture

like I said, the New Testament does not call for theocracy, but it does not directly negate the Old Testament teachings
it is a nuanced topic


it is late, I am sure when I am well rested I can think of some more examples lol

 

[Freakconformist]

Ha, I tend to think of myself as a deep thinker, then I run into posts like this. I didn't even know either of those things had names, lol. I suppose I shouldn't say I'm a "deep thinker", but saying I'm a "minimalist thinker" just doesn't sound very flattering, does it?

I think to get a good idea of what you're asking here, we have to trim all the fat of what it means to be a real "Christ-follower". The question is, "What did Jesus intend for 'the Church' to be?" I don't even think first century Christians had it right.

Or rather, they had a good start in Acts, meeting in worship, dispersing wealth, taking care of the orphans and the widows, etc. However, "religion" quickly wormed its way into the mix, people were already mixing Judaism in with their Christianity. The fact that the Apostles had to have a council and make "rules and guidelines" didn't so much as weed out the "religion" as put a tighter collar on it. Through the ages we've continued to tighten that collar until I'm pretty sure most of what we call "Christianity" today would have Jesus scratching his head. I would even go so far as to say that He would call some of us Pharisees, and if you read Matthew 23:15-39, He's not all that fond of them.

The thing is, Jesus didn't really tell us how we're supposed to "be" Christians. I suppose you could say he taught us to gather together to listen to teachings, but that's a pretty bare description of what we call "Church" today. I don't think he intended it to turn into "Gather once a week, make sure you're dressed to impress, hug everybody to prove to those watching how loving and accepting you are, have a bible study with your clique, sing exactly 3 songs for some odd reason, mention to your neighbor that those aren't the songs you would have chosen, listen to announcements, remember that you really did want to go that mid-week group/charity event but you completely forgot (you'll remember next time for sure), and then listen to a teaching that has been timed out to exactly 45 minutes, maybe sing another pointless song (which was completely wrong), then hug everybody good-bye as you rush off to lunch and your Sunday afternoon nap, don't forget to completely forget what the sermon was about immediately after lunch."

Personally, I believe that God intended for us to live by faith, trusting him for provision, wisdom, and direction. There are a ton of examples of this in the Bible from Abraham to Jonah, yet they very idea of trying to do that today is shocking and somehow "counter-culture"; rude even, for expecting others to "pay for you". But this is basically how missionaries live. This is how Paul lived and, in my opinion, if anybody lived as Christ intended for them to live, it was Paul.

Of course, while the spirit might be willing to live in complete faith that the Holy Spirit will lead them into paths of righteousness at all times, at some point even missionaries are going to stop and say "Hey, God, this has been great, but can I get a little more security down here?"

That's our nature, we want rules, we want everything to be defined we don't want to be constantly thinking and stressed about what's behind the next corner. Fortunately, God understands and His love is all-encompassing, He gives us the grace and the free will to live as faithfully or as religiously as we are able to stand. In the end I think it just comes down to one question, "Do you believe that Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior?"

 

[SnowyMacie]

I've always sort of seen religion sort of like biology, over time things evolve, there's a reason Christianity bares a closer resemblance to Islam than Taoism. While that is usually what occurs, just like in biology, hybrids happen. That's how we have religions like Santeria or Voodoo. I think the question of "At what point are you practicing your own religion?" is a really interesting question because I know a personal level there are some Charismatic/Pentecostal or Calvinists that have such a different view of God, the spiritual and physical realms that it's almost like we are of two different religions, but I have more in common with them than your average Voodoo priest. In other words, I think it comes down to the core of the religion, and that once the core gets warped into a different message or deity entirely, it's a different belief system instead of just un-orthodoxy.

When you look at the history of Santeria or Voodoo, it's interesting that it was really African mythology that got inculturated into Roman Catholicism, the slaves brought their religion when they were brought over to the New World, which outlawed their practices. In a way, those religions were, for lack of a better term, created, to preserve their culture and history. On the other hand, something like the Prosperity Gospel, is religion seeking out inculteration than a response to it. Propersity preachers are blending the culture they are apart of into the religion to the point in which they are preaching an entirely different message. In other words, they are seeking out syncretism and inculteration whereas the first Voodoo or Santeria practices did so as a reaction.

I think inculteration does not have to necessarily to be a negative thing, in fact, I think if it's done right, it's an incredibly powerful tool. For example, I remembering hearing the story from Thai missionaries about how they started bowing in church. It was really simple to them: in Thai culture, you bow to the king, so if Christ is king, it would make sense in the mind of a Thai person to bow to him. I think other examples are that instead of just translating our songs to whatever language, actually write song and worship that follow their language and practices. I think the message of the gospel is bigger than our culture, and that we need to be cautious in evangelizing to other cultures that we are not accidentally spreading our culture along with Christianity. I've heard from several missionaries to several different countries that the most effective missions are the ones that incorporate the culture into Christian worship, not necessarily their religious' beliefs, but cultural norms.

 

[SnowyMacie]

Since Santeria has been mentioned, obligatory:

 

[Travelers.Soul]

I really like Darth's analogy of a nut.

I think one thing we need to keep in the back of our minds, at least when we speak of missions, is that there needs to be an understanding of not only syncretism but also contextualization. While missionaries can run the danger of going so far in contextualization that it becomes syncretism they do not need to go hand in hand. When missionaries go into another culture they must on some level contextual the Gospel if they want the people to understand the message and interact with it. It goes further than just having a grasp of culture but also of their world view (and everything that entails), their religion, and language. The goal is to keep the content and Gospel unchanged in meaning but if they need to change references of bread into rice then they do it. It isn't very difficult to find examples of contextualization gone wrong however. One huge debate going on currently is how far is too far in contextualizing the Gospel to reach Muslims. How far until it just becomes a blend between Islam and Christianity? We don't want people to become American or western Christians. We want them to be Christians who follow Christ, however that looks in their culture. We want them to reject the bad or sinful practices of their culture without throwing away the good and their culture identities. For contextualization to work and not turn into syncretism the people must have a solid theological foundation and be very diligent. Often syncretism comes about by careless contextualization which is why contextualizing the Gospel must be done so with diligence, prayer, discernment, and wisdom.

 

[Sketcher]

ofcourse Jesus wants true converts
but you can also see similar themes in the Old Testament, that did not negate the idea of Israel having religion be a core part of the government/culture

like I said, the New Testament does not call for theocracy, but it does not directly negate the Old Testament teachings
it is a nuanced topic

I would say that depends on the teaching. Having true religion at the core of the culture is a good thing, but then that becomes too institutionalized, the church ceases to be a house of mercy for sinners and starts to be a means of marginalizing the people Jesus rescued; hence the church which started out with Jesus reaching out to the people the Pharisees lost, switches from doing what Jesus did to doing what the Pharisees did. While there are provisions in the OT law for the individual sinner to come back to God, we see in the Gospels that people screwed it up badly, such is the nature of people. So not only is a theocracy not commanded (vs. being commanded in the OT), I don't see it as compatible with the very spirit of Jesus's ministry.

 

[Rhamiel]

I really like Darth's analogy of a nut.

I think one thing we need to keep in the back of our minds, at least when we speak of missions, is that there needs to be an understanding of not only syncretism but also contextualization. While missionaries can run the danger of going so far in contextualization that it becomes syncretism they do not need to go hand in hand. When missionaries go into another culture they must on some level contextual the Gospel if they want the people to understand the message and interact with it. It goes further than just having a grasp of culture but also of their world view (and everything that entails), their religion, and language. The goal is to keep the content and Gospel unchanged in meaning but if they need to change references of bread into rice then they do it. It isn't very difficult to find examples of contextualization gone wrong however. One huge debate going on currently is how far is too far in contextualizing the Gospel to reach Muslims. How far until it just becomes a blend between Islam and Christianity? We don't want people to become American or western Christians. We want them to be Christians who follow Christ, however that looks in their culture. We want them to reject the bad or sinful practices of their culture without throwing away the good and their culture identities. For contextualization to work and not turn into syncretism the people must have a solid theological foundation and be very diligent. Often syncretism comes about by careless contextualization which is why contextualizing the Gospel must be done so with diligence, prayer, discernment, and wisdom.

I did not know that this was such a big debate about Islam

here is one idea, that Islam is more of a "Christian heresy" rather then a totally separate religion

two of the main ideas of Islam are Christian ideas, the transcendence of God, and the oneness of God
but they are exaggerated to the point of rejecting Christianity

 

[Goodbook]

Hmm syncretism
It would be something like

Chrislam which is like christianity mixed with islam.
Christian Science which is sort of christinaity mixed with hinduism
Catholicism is like christianity mixed with roman empire
Prosperity gospel is christianity mixed with mammon and positive thinking
Some of seventh day adventism is christinity mixed with judaism
Some of charasmatic or pentecostalism is christianity mixed with witchcraft
Presybeterianism is christianity mixed with freemasonry
Ratana chruch is christianity mixed with maori animistic beliefs
Bahai faith is christinaity mixed with new age beliefs in reincarnation

 

[Goodbook]

I think if you born again you born from above and God waters where you were planted. So maybe it depends on whether you have good soil.

Plants do grow best in their native climates. So what may be understandable in one culture or country wont work in another because they dont have the language or same metaphors to describe what may be clear as mud to you.

 

[Rhamiel]

Catholicism is like christianity mixed with roman empire

I would argue that Roman Catholicism is not syncretism, but rather an example of Christianity converting a culture
the people were still citizens of the Roman Empire, but they were also now Christian
the history of rhetoric and logic was still a part of them
the foundations of greek philosophy was still part of them
personal austerity and law and order was still part of them

cultures can kind of be seen like individuals
when you become a Christian
you are born again
but you still have the same strengths and weaknesses, you still have your own personality

(by Roman Catholicism I mean the Latin Church)

 

[Goodbook]

well, vain philosophy and debating was never a christian thing. We live by faith, not philosophy or arguments.
Jesus greatest two commandments were love, so, law and order is more like policing the populace rather than having any effect on our hearts.

I would say its a sort of syncretism.

 

[Goodbook]

Jesus did not convert cultures he came for peoples souls.

 

[Goodbook]

Also we are part of the heavenly kingdom not the kingdoms of this world, of which the roman empire was one (and still is) just now it has a veneer of religion.

 

[Hawthorne]

Also we are part of the heavenly kingdom not the kingdoms of this world, of which the roman empire was one (and still is) just now it has a veneer of religion.

Not quite.

The term Kingdom of Heaven appears exclusively in Matthew's gospel, whose document is addressed to the Jews who were scrupulous about not misusing the name of God, often using Heaven as a euphemism (Compare with Christ's discussion of oaths in Matthew 5:33-37). Parallel accounts find the term Kingdom of God.

The Kingdom of God, or Heaven, is not some far-distant thing, but is ever present and real on the earth. It should be noted that the monarchy did not end with the Diaspora (Genesis 49:10). Christ is the king; Mary is the queen regnant, and the Pope (currently Francis I) is the regent after the manner of appointing prime ministers as detailed in Isaiah 22:15-24 and Matthew 16:18-19.

If the Catholic Church appears like an earthly kingdom it is with good reason; it purports to be nothing less than the same kingdom which Saul, David, and Solomon ruled. Indeed, the government of Vatican City is itself classified as a monarchy.