Christianity PLUS: How Syncretistic Are We?

Students of the Old Testament quickly come to realize that the story of God's people, in part, is a story of religious syncretism (the contextualization of theology to the point where it becomes united with or incorporates elements of other religions or systems of belief). Just as God's ancient people often considered the exclusive worship of YHWH as culturally unenlightened and restrictive, choosing therefore to blend their faith with the "benefits" that Canaanite fertility rites and temple prostitution offered -- I wonder to what degree followers of Christ today are promoting a "Christianity PLUS", blending our holy, catholic and apostolic faith with the "benefits" that are now available to us.

- Christianity PLUS moral relativism.
- Christianity PLUS consumerism.
- Christianity PLUS pop-psychology.
- Christianity PLUS neopaganism.
- Christianity PLUS (you_fill_in_the_blank).

What is it that leads us into religious syncretism, anyway? Is it our thirst for truth? I don't think so. More and more I'm thinking that it is our desire to "belong" -- to be like the world around us and enjoying what they enjoy.

In the prophet Hosea's day, Israel feigned loyalty to YHWH while prostituting themselves through Baal worship. Going up to the "high places" in order to have sex with Canaanite temple prostitutes was what "everyone" was doing -- and besides, it was a good business practice for it promised the participant an abundant crop for the coming harvest year -- right?. A syncretistic faith offers us the opportunity to "have our cake and eat it too." The Message Bible seems to pick up on this nuance in it's rendering of Hosea 4:6-19...

My people are ruined
because they don't know what's right or true.
Because you've turned your back on knowledge,
I've turned my back on you priests.
Because you refuse to recognize the revelation of God,
I'm no longer recognizing your children.
The more priests, the more sin.
They traded in their glory for shame.
They pig out on my people's sins.
They can't wait for the latest in evil.
The result: You can't tell the people from the priests,
the priests from the people.
I'm on my way to make them both pay
and take the consequences of the bad lives they've lived.
They'll eat and be as hungry as ever,
have sex and get no satisfaction.
They walked out on me, their God,
for a life of rutting with whores.

"Wine and whiskey
leave my people in a stupor.
They ask questions of a dead tree,
expect answers from a sturdy walking stick.
Drunk on sex, they can't find their way home.
They've replaced their God with their genitals.
They worship on the tops of mountains,
make a picnic out of religion.
Under the oaks and elms on the hills
they stretch out and take it easy.
Before you know it, your daughters are whores
and the wives of your sons are sleeping around.
But I'm not going after your whoring daughters
or the adulterous wives of your sons.
It's the men who pick up the whores that I'm after,
the men who worship at the holy whorehouses—
a stupid people, ruined by whores!

"You've ruined your own life, Israel—
but don't drag Judah down with you!
Don't go to the sex shrine at Gilgal,
don't go to that sin city Bethel,
Don't go around saying 'God bless you' and not mean it,
taking God's name in vain.
Israel is stubborn as a mule.
How can God lead him like a lamb to open pasture?
Ephraim is addicted to idols.
Let him go.
When the beer runs out,
it's sex, sex, and more sex.
Bold and sordid debauchery—
how they love it!
The whirlwind has them in its clutches.
Their sex-worship leaves them finally impotent.

Is it possible that, ultimately, it is our fleshly base desires which drive our efforts to incorporate "other" beliefs into our faith? Are we merely looking for ways to do whatever-we-damn-well-please and still feel good about ourselves? How syncretistic is Christianity becoming today? Should this be a concern, or are we simply more "enlightened" than the ancient people of God, without the need to worry about such a thing?

Comments

[Karl Thienes]

Chris,

This is exactly why the Orthodox view the PoMo obsession with "recontexualization" with such skepticism....you are sounding more Orthodox every day! :)

From an apostolic and historical pov what passes for Christainty these days sure walks and talks like syncretism...and of course, just as in Hosea's time, the warnings voiced are typically either scorned or brushed aside as "pharisaical" or "triumphalistic"...

One last thought: Your "Christianity-Plus" reminded me of Lewis in Screwtape Letters when Screwtape advises that Christians should be encouraged to create "Christianity-AND"....

[Chris(tine)]

DP, you've touched on one of my major questions these days - how do you discern the difference between a growing realization that the truth of God may be bigger than my previous "tribal" understanding and worldview - and not fall into syncretism? If I am at risk of syncretism, I don't think it's for wanting what the world around me has (though I'll admit to the possibility) - 'cause I AM at risk of loosing the approval of my "tribe" (church community) for adopting differing views.

I don't believe anyone is completely free of mixed motives, even in a wholehearted pursuit of truth - there will almost always be some element of "comfort seeking" in what drives us forward, even if that's buried some layers deep... not that we shouldn't seek to move beyond those drives for something purer, but I doubt it will ever be that clear cut for most of us.

Just some thoughts that your post provoked...

[Daniel]

I think contextualization is unavoidable...I mean, unless you think we ought to be worshipping in Aramaic. Translation is contextualization. The fact that we worship in buildings we call "churches" is contextualization, an adaptation of Roman pagan temple worship. Our celebration of Christmas is largely contextualization, full of symbols adapted from heathen cultures and "baptized." The question I'm hearing come out of DP's post is, "Where do we draw the line?"

Deuteronomy 12 is the classic biblical teaching on the subject.

These are the decrees and laws you must be careful to follow in the land that the LORD, the God of your fathers, has given you to possess — as long as you live in the land. Destroy completely all the places on the high mountains and on the hills and under every spreading tree where the nations you are dispossessing worship their gods. Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and burn their Asherah poles in the fire; cut down the idols of their gods and wipe out their names from those places. You must not worship the LORD your God in their way. But you are to seek the place the LORD your God will choose from among all your tribes to put his Name there for his dwelling. To that place you must go; there bring your burnt offerings and sacrifices, your tithes and special gifts, what you have vowed to give and your freewill offerings, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks. There, in the presence of the LORD your God, you and your families shall eat and shall rejoice in everything you have put your hand to, because the LORD your God has blessed you.

The kind of worship God was mandating for his people here has changed, but the principle is still valid, I think. "Resist the temptation to worship me in the way the world worships its gods. Worship me in the way I have taught you." Today, that teaching comes to us first and foremost through the Bible (particularly the New Testament, which describes how to relate to God under the New Covenant) and then through the tradition of the Church. (How's that for sounding Orthodox, Karl?)

[DLE]

Thank you. Thank you for showing that I am not the only one troubled by this.

When I lived in Silicon Valley, I was astounded at how many "Christians" would go to church on Sunday, pray at the Buddhist temple on Tuesday, attend a pagan earth ritual on Friday, and consult their psychic on Saturday.

The Bible says, "My people perish for lack of knowledge," but in these days I think that the word "knowledge" should be replaced with the word "discernment." At the core, I have to wonder if the folks who practice this syncretism actually know the Lord. I tend to believe they do not. What affiliation does Christ have with Belial? None, whatsoever.

We are looking at the beginnings of a worldwide apostate "church" that culls whatever it wants from the major religions and seduces the ignorant. That we in the evangelical church have allowed this to happen in our efforts to not scare away people is to our shame.

[Karl Thienes]

"...an adaptation of Roman pagan temple worship."

Not quite. Church architecture is the fulfillment of the Temple in Judaism and has little to do with pagan temples. Check out Orthodox Worship : A Living Continuity With the Temple, the Synagogue, and the Early Church by Benjamin D. Wilson and Harold Anstell for more on this.

"Today, that teaching comes to us first and foremost through the Bible...then through the tradition of the Church."

So why has modern Christianity abandoned the centrality of the Bishop, the sacraments, the Divine Liturgy, incense, prayers to the saints, closed communion, iconography, etc....? Because, as Chris notes, we've substituted the Spirit-filled Tradition for post-Enlightenment "culture"....

The problem, as I've said many times, isn't with contextualization. The Orthodox do it all the time. I think what Chris is getting at is the problem with RE-contextualization--the kind of revisionism and syncretism that isn't consubstantial with the apostolic faith.

"We are looking at the beginnings of a worldwide apostate 'church'...."

No kidding. I highly recommend Fr. Seraphim Rose's "Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future" for more on this.

[Chris (DesertPastor)]

I think Daniel is hearing me right -- I'm more concerned about where we draw the line than debating whether or not there should even be a line (Hmmmm. That might sound even more unclear!). I see contextualization as an essential component for being incarnational and missional in our ministry efforts. What worries me is if we're using "contextualization" as the proverbial "blank-check", self-righteously validating our syncretisitic activities in the name of contextualization.

Well, anyway... like Chris(tine), my journey has taken me outside of the boundaries which define my community of faith (don't get your hopes up too much, Karl!), but hopefully -- I pray -- not outside the histo-theological tragectory that has united believers throughout the centuries.

Within our current cultural context -- one that places a premium on tolerance, radical egalitarianism, and moral relativism -- I think the Church would be wise to analyze itself. This is sort of (on a macro scale) like the NT's advice that we "examine ourselves, to see if we are in the faith..." If we end up falling short in one way or another, then let's get busy making the necessary changes.

I think that the Church has done this sort of thing in the past. When, for example, "civil government" was oppressively blended with our holy faith -- it was renounced, and renewal followed.

[Daniel]

"Church architecture is the fulfillment of the Temple..."

I'm uncomfortable with your use of the word "fulfillment," I think because Christ uses it of himself. As the fulfillment of the Law, I would say that Christ himself is the fulfillment of the Temple...but of course, that's a discussion for another blog, I think.

While you make your point that there are other influences behind today's building-bound ecclesiologly, I think you'll have a hard time justifying that ecclesiology biblically. That's not to say that we shouldn't make use of buildings, only that it's not the biblically mandated way of doing church. You have to admit that NT ecclesiology is pretty vague (though I have a feeling you won't). For example, we know that churches are to be led by people called bishops, elders, pastors, and deacons. We know the criteria (or at least some of the criteria) by which these people are to be selected. But as far as job descriptions for these people, well, I frequently find myself wishing there were a little more detail there.

My point wasn't that Roman pagan temple worship was the sole influencing factor behind the modern practice of worshipping in a building called a church, but to point out that it was a factor, one factor among many. Some of those influences are sacred; some are not. That's contextualization.

[not perfection]

DLE has this right:

"I was astounded at how many 'Christians' would go to church on Sunday, pray at the Buddhist temple on Tuesday, attend a pagan earth ritual on Friday, and consult their psychic on Saturday."

That is the end result of the current spate of syncretistic worship. That, and the wonderfully absurd image you chose to illustrate your post -- our glorious Savior linked with a marijuana leaf! The place that is most prone to this addlebrained approach is beliefnet -- what a ghastly bazaar of the bizarre masquerading as religion.

Love all those who seek God, honor all religious traditions, but know you belong to Christ and it is He who has redeemed you.

[Benjy (groovythpstr)]

While I'm not a supporter of syncretism, I think we take the wrong approach far too often ( as with other areas ). Instead of judging or critizing those who practice it, or those who are apart of other religions, we should instead ask why. We are spiritual beings, and maybe these people are looking for God and can't seem to find Him within our christian community.

"I was astounded at how many 'Christians' would go to church on Sunday, pray at the Buddhist temple on Tuesday, attend a pagan earth ritual on Friday, and consult their psychic on Saturday." This is true, but why? Could there be more to it than that its culturally popular? What's the deeper issue here?

[Chris (DesertPastor)]

I think that Daniel is hinting at the liklihood that syncretism has historically occurred within Christendom in ways perhaps we have generally been blind to until now.

Benjy also makes an important point. Pointing out the syncretistic practices of others is only one facet of the problem. We must also be willing to ask ourselves, "is it possible that something is wrong with how we are practicing our Christian faith that may be leading people to look elsewhere?" We, in fact, may not have a "log" in our own eye -- but we regularly should check and make sure anyway. And when we do check, we might be surprized by what we find. This however should not lead us to minimize or ignore the problem of religious syncretism.

[DLE]

Benjy wrote:
"This is true, but why? Could there be more to it than that its culturally popular? What's the deeper issue here?"

The deeper issue is that the Church has allowed this to happen due to its weak approach toward relativism. People can smell the stench rising out of the rot in our doctrine and so they go looking elsewhere.

There are many out there that have questioned why doctrine matters at all. This is why.

So people claim to be Christians but do not actually ever come to Christ. There is no inner witness imparted. There may be some intellectual assent, but the Spirit is missing. Instead, we fill our churches with these folks and they "dilute" the power of our meetings.

Tolerance has made this possible. Tolerance is what is left when people no longer share a common identity. Our identity in the Church is found in Christ, but if our churches are filled with people who do not share this identity, we are left with no community, but only tolerance. This also sends people looking elsewhere.

The solutions? Relentlessy point to Jesus. Hold fast to what is true. Keep the Bible and throw out the psychology we've foolishly attached to it. Preach about sin and bring people to the cross. Don't ask the Spirit to keep Himself boxed up. Do not tolerate "doctrine creep"--kill it before it guts the Body. Ask for commitment and then hold people to it. Make your common goals clear. Tell people this is what is essential--if they can't buy in, then they can go someplace else because we are not going to change our devotion to Jesus in order to make them feel comfortable. Above all, practice truth with grace. And don't mistake real grace for the cheap variety we have chosen to exalt lately. Real grace is always costly.

You do those things and you'll stand against the waves of syncretism.

[Karl Thienes]

"As the fulfillment of the Law, I would say that Christ himself is the fulfillment of the Temple."

Of course. What I was getting at was your assertion that the Church building is an "adaptation" of pagan temples when in fact paganism had little or nothing to do with the Church's architecture or theology of sacred space.

"But as far as job descriptions for these people, well, I frequently find myself wishing there were a little more detail there."

All of this kind of information is contained within the life of the Church Herself. There was no need to explicate on the topic (or on many others) in the NT because it was assumed that those who would read the Epistles would already be experiencing these things sacramentally, liturgically, ascetically, etc.

This is why "contextualization" doesn't make sense coming from those who themselves are "in the dark" (so to speak) on topics of such a fundamental nature. How can one contexualize a truth that one only understands within one context (and one so far removed from the original?)

[Benjy (groovythpstr)]

"People can smell the stench rising out of the rot in our doctrine and so they go looking elsewhere.There are many out there that have questioned why doctrine matters at all. This is why."

Dan, this is the main difference between the modern and emerging church. Many of us would strongly disagree with your overemphasis on believing the right things. God's power and Spirit are not linked to correct doctrine. Its about lifestyle.

[DLE]

Benjy wrote:
"Dan, this is the main difference between the modern and emerging church. Many of us would strongly disagree with your overemphasis on believing the right things. God's power and Spirit are not linked to correct doctrine. Its about lifestyle."

The modern church allowed the rot to happen and the emerging church is, in many cases, actually reveling in the rot, particularly when we get stuff like, "It's all about love."

While that may be true, it's also overly simplistic. Doctrine matters. The reason why we have this syncretism problem is largely because we abandoned good doctrine for good feelings. If God says, "Don't!" it is not up to us to try to figure out how we can get around that. If God says, "Do!" it is not up to us to determine whether He means it or not. Doctrine addresses this.

The entire Bible is about believing the right things. The reason Man fell was because we believed the wrong things. God's power and the Spirit are ABSOLUTELY linked to correct doctrine, or are we going to say that the Jehovah's Witnesses are the next wave in the charismatic movement?

But you are right, too, in that it is about lifestyle. But lifestyle is nothing more than putting right beliefs into practice. As a man thinks, so he is. It still starts with the beliefs. Why did Paul so vehemently warn against false teachers? You try to get a church in one accord where half the people are annihilationists and the other half are fire and brimstone and I can tell you that their lifestyles are going to reflect their beliefs and ultimately split the church.

The EC acts sometimes as if the Old Testament ceased to exist the second Jesus opened His mouth. But the word of God so loved by the NT church was the OT! It all fits together.

Now I wrote something recently similar to this idea (it was mostly about inerrancy, but it applies to right doctrine, too.) You can find it at http://www.dedelen.com/2004/07/flawed-love-letter.html and I hope you read the Psalm there--it says everything we need to know.

Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God. The reason why have rampant syncretism is because some people decided to embrace a lifestyle contrary to this, and now we have the fallout. If the EC were wise, they'd get their doctrine in order. But I am not holding my breath....

[tammy]

the modern church is syncretistic, just as the postmodern church is. it's just a matter of which parts of our culture we are using for the syncretism. let's not make this a modern/postmodern, or a institutional/emerging, debate. it's so much bigger than that.

[Chris (DesertPastor)]

Benjy, to view doctrine and lifestyle as mutually exclusive would be a huge mistake, I fear. "Living out what we believe" is what Jesus seemed to contend for, over and over again. We need more of a Holy Spirit empowered synthesis of doctrine and lifestyle throughout the entire Church.

[Fernando Dunn II]

Chris: I agree. Seperating the two is like seperating God and God's Word. It kind of reminds me of James telling us that faith and deeds go hand in hand.

I see a bit of a deeper problem. Counterfeits are infiltrating the Church and perverting Christ's purpose. It's mentioned many times in scripture. We're not warned to watch out for wolves, but wolves in sheep clothing.

I hear some christians (notice the lower-case) in my workplace turning Christianity into the occult. Instead of relying solely on the perfected scripture for guidance, humanistic ideas, tall-tales, myths, and speculation has been added. I think the problem is our pride. Instead of conforming to Christ, we seem to try to conform Christ to us.

[Chris (DesertPastor)]

Fernando --

"Instead of relying solely on the perfected scripture for guidance..."

I think this part of your statement has also been a problem within the Church. But then, I'm a die-hard Wesleyan who believes that in addition to scripture, we must also draw from tradition, reason, and experience. Apart from that though, I agree with you that there is a lot of the "blending" you've mentioned going on (e.g. humanistic notions, neo-paganism, etc.).