The Lausanne Global Conversation is on the World Wide Open Network
المؤلف: Cody C. Lorance
التاريخ: 28.03.2012
Category: الحرية الدينية, معتقدات العالم, الحق والتعددية
Perhaps no other word in the ecumenical vocabulary has aroused more fears, created more unnecessary controversy, and, more often than not, succeeded in sidetracking urgent issues in the life of the churches in pluralist situations than the term syncretism. – Stanley Samartha[1]
Very often in discussions regarding the topic of contextualization in mission, one is warned not to “go too far” lest we inadvertently wander into the forbidden realm of syncretism. Ah yes, syncretism, the very word itself conjures up specters of heretical cult-leaders dabbling in pagan rites and sends most of us running to dust off our Inquisitor tool boxes. Having learned to uncritically assume the orthodoxy of our received church traditions (most of which are decidedly Western in derivation), we tend to be especially prone to hurl the term at any form, symbol, or ceremony we encounter as foreign. For far too many of us, the term syncretistic is roughly equivalent to a term like “exotic” or “odd.”
It is better, indeed, safer to command the pagans and savages coming to Jesus to abandon every scrap of their former life and cultural context – to “make men of our Fridays”. After all, the Biblical appropriateness of leather Bibles, Christmas trees, pig-eating, white wedding dresses, pianos, and Windsor knots is beyond dispute. But their old traditions? No, no, they must be discarded. Failure to do so would be the very definition of syncretism.
I have noticed, by the way, that those who are prone to use a phrase like “the very definition of syncretism” are often the least likely to be able to actually provide a definition of the term. They seem to take a very emotionally-driven, “I’ll-know-it-when-I-see-it” approach. Indeed the proclivity to use the term in this way – that is, as a missiological mortar – isn’t uncommon at all. As the late Carl Strokloff pointed out, syncretism has become the “ten-letter, four-letter word”[2] in missions, used primarily as a device for inciting fear and winning a debate by default.
But what is syncretism?
I have appreciated Richard Twiss’s definition:
“Syncretism can be described as a way of thinking that says by performing or participating in a particular religious ceremony or practice, you can alter the essential human spiritual condition in the same way that Jesus does, through His death on the cross, burial, and resurrection from the dead, because they are parallel truths.”
Twiss, however, would agree with the slight corrective that syncretism speaks more of a result than a process. Syncretism exists when the Lord Jesus Christ is not at the center of things and when a false gospel emerges -- when this, in Twiss’s words, exists as the “settled state”. If Twiss is correct then, it is difficult to blame the intentional pursuit of contextualization on the arrival at this “settled state”. To be sure, something similar in form to contextualization can be a vehicle that gets you there (i.e. accomadatio), but it isn’t the only thing going that direction. Indeed, if we assume that the practitioner of contextualization begins with a firm commitment to the authority of Scripture and a correct understanding of the gospel and of Jesus Christ, then it would actually be impossible for such a “settled state” to develop so long as theological orthodoxy is maintained. The nature of intentional contextualization (particularly as possessio) actually seems to preclude the possibility of syncretism as it necessitates the engagement in a continual process of examination, intentionality, and cultural and theological reflection in its appropriation and utilization of symbols, signs, forms, ceremonies, and traditions as communicators of spiritual truth and vehicles of Christian expression. Syncretism, the “settled state” of an off-centered Christ and an aberrant gospel, requires either poor discipleship or else the uncritical use of cultural forms (regardless of the context from which those forms emerged) to exist. Thus, it would ironically seem that those who uncritically accept the importation and transmission of foreign cultural forms, symbols and traditions are the ones who are often more susceptible to syncretism. Such syncretism can be witnessed frequently as when Santa Claus is given a major role in the church Christmas drama, when Christian leaders are tempted to mistake financial affluence with divine blessing, or when new followers of Christ are required to add to their faith conformity to various foreign cultural forms.
For the record, I oppose the development of false gospels and the off-centering of Christ in the Church. Such syncretism is far too prevalent. But to harass those who seek to magnify Christ by sacrificially imitating his incarnation in cross-cultural mission is no more than a diversion from the real problem. I have little doubt that the Enemy would have us hunting demons in everything foreign to the received traditions of Christendom so as to overlook the syncretism among us that we have grown far too comfortable with. Truly, as I have contended elsewhere, the supposed link between contextualization and syncretism is mythological. Syncretism grows out of some other soil. As we have seen, understanding the term properly requires us to say more than simply that it is too much contextualization.
For more on this topic:
كلمات مفتاحية: contextualization, syncretism, culture
مشاهدات: 4567
تعليقات: 9
توصيات: 0
شروط الاستخدام | سياسة الخصوصية | إن محاورة لوزان العالمية مدعوم من قِبَل World Wide Open | ما هي World Wide Open؟
محاورة نشر تعليق
الولايات المتحدة
I think it is very important to realize that not everyone does things the way we do (in the West). And that is good. Our worldview is often limited to our own culture and anything else seems wrong. But I think we will be surprised to discover upon entering Heaven, that Jesus may not be clean-shaven, well-dressed, and sporting a “Windsor knot.” Therefore, we have to expand our worldview to include other cultures and ways of worshipping the One true God that may not mirror our own. This does not make their worship invalid or wrong. It makes it diverse. While the Truth may be absolute, our method of response to It is not.
21.11.2012
الولايات المتحدة
@ dg8074:
Agreed.
21.11.2012
الولايات المتحدة
@ dg8074:
I love the imagery of Jesus in a windsor knot; maybe a four-in-hand on more casual occasions.
It is simply amazing how much our personal experience skews everything we envision, yet we cannot seem to allow ourselves to extend that courtesy to others.
05.12.2012
الولايات المتحدة
Before reading this particular post, I had never heard of the word syncretism, but I have seen it done. Though I did not know the name of the crime, I do recognize it. It is far too much to ask a new believer to throw away all that they have ever known and live just like a westerner with no knowledge or concept of what that means. A person must live the way they know to live and if that includes something that a western person does not understand or know anything about, then trust the person who does know something about it to be able to adequately judge whether it falls under a sin label or not.
04.12.2012
الولايات المتحدة
@ Adnahsar:
You bring up a most important point. As Paul tells us in Galatians 6, each of us must examine our own work. Just as it is too much to ask a new, non-western (even to some extent western) believer to throw away their important cultural history and practice, it is too much to ask a westerner to completely understand those practices. That said, the westerner must defer judgement to those with knowlege of the thing in question, and not pass judgement blindly. Above all, we must strive to "be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted, and humble in spirit" in all situations.
05.12.2012
الولايات المتحدة
Very well said!
I second your ascertion of our litmus test for what we feel is correct worship. I find that the I-know-it-when-I-see-it attitude often stems from blind allegiance, and never provides a secure foundation. I find it proper in those moments to thouroughly examine why I do whatever is in question, and prayerfully make adjustments.
12.11.2012
الولايات المتحدة
@ corenfa:
Good word.
20.11.2012
الولايات المتحدة
Thank you so much for this article! I must confess that I had accepted an unfounded fear of syncretism from other Christians. Granted I have never advocated the contining of a tradition just for the sake of tradition. I am always excited to see how there is such the diversity within Christianity but we are all still united in Christ Jesus. However, my upbringing in church and from well-meaning Christians in my life have maybe unconsciously advocated staying "true" to the gospel which was really just their version of Christianity. Many of them do not know any better. They advocate what is familiar to them because they were taught that Christianity looks a certain way.
Too often emphasis is placed on the form (the things we do) rather than the meaning (the significance of the form). I strongly believe that God has prepared a way for the gospel in every culture and we must realize that that way may not look familiar to us. We must not take for granted even phrases such as "good shepherd" to describe Jesus. I have read that phrase would not translate well in Nigeria. It gives an image of protector, provider, etc in America perhaps but in Nigeria only mentally challenged men were shepherds! Referring to Jesus as the good shepherd in Nigeria would not be true to what that phrase was trying to convey. Do we find another way of describing Jesus that is true to the meaning intended or do we continue to describe Jesus in that way and try to change how people there will view it? I think it is more beneficial to use the forms that are already familiar to the culture and show biblical truths through them. In other words, it is our job to understand the gospel enough (the centrality of Jesus, and not our preconceived notions) to be able to translate not just words but the meanings of the Biblical truths with minimal influence from forms which is heavely affected by one’s culture.
09.04.2012
الولايات المتحدة
@ harek:
Thank you for your great and encouraging comment, Harek. I think the "good shepherd" example is an apt one to raise. Blessings to you!
10.04.2012
يتوجب عليك تسجيل الدخول أولاً لكي تتمكن من نشر تعليق. إذا لم يكن لديك حساب، يمكن التسجيل الآن (إنه مجاني وسهل!)