|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: To what extent is syncretism a bad thing?
|
scuffleball
Shipmate
# 16480
|
Posted
The reason I am starting this post is because I have come across different reactions to syncretism both on this chatroom and elsewhere, and I have a gut reaction about what I think about each example, but when I try to come up with a systematic rule about when syncretism is okay it seems to fail at least one such example. So here goes -
People on this chatroom generally use the word "syncretism" in a negative sense. Is this because it implies mixing beliefs of lots of religions with those of Christianity, rather than simply their practices? After all, Christianity has adopted lots of pagan traditions and festivals, and whenever Christian missionaries have go to communities they adopt the idiom of that community and their pre-existing cultural traditions.
From time to time, people accuse other people of being externally of a certain ethnicity but internally white e.g. "coconut" - see
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/worldhaveyoursay/2010/06/_in_bristol_a_black.html
This seems a bit like tall poppy syndrome to me - striking people down for being successful? Likewise when I was in lower school Afro-Caribbean slang was fashionable, but when white people adopted it, Afro-Caribbean people would frown on them and accuse them of "acting black." Both of these things seem odd.
There are some websites on the internet that say it is racist for white people to adopt the traditions of native american people, for instance
http://mycultureisnotatrend.tumblr.com/
Does this mean that when white people, such as in the Episcopal church as mentioned on various previous occasions on this chatroom, adopt songs, dances and other liturgical elements from various Native American traditions they are being racist? Quite frankly in a lot of circumstances they are doing so in ignorance of the tradition from which said liturgical elements originate.
My personal feeling is as follows;
•Whilst some denominations would say pre-Christian traditions preserved and adopted for Christian use were useful in former times and now redundant, and we need to adapt to modern idiom, I think it is good to preserve old traditions because they are part of our culture. Christmas Trees, for instance, should neither be abolished for being pagan or irrelevant, nor should their Christian content be excised for being a bowlderisation of something pagan.
•British (and presumably American) society is by nature a melting of lots of different traditions and that is a good thing and to say that people should not participate in a tradition because it is to do with someone else's ethnicity would get ridiculous if taken to its logical extreme. At the same time, people should learn the meanings of customs.
Or perhaps I am being naïve and ignorant? What are other people's feelings on this matter?
--------------------
SPK: I also plan to create ... a Calvinist Ordinariate
ken: I thought it was called Taize?
Posts: 272 | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
An interesting question, scuffleball, and not an easy one to answer.
As I mentioned in another discussion, the mainstream Christian churches in Ghana did not permit dancing and drumming in church because they were intimately associated with indigenous pagan practices; and there were questions as to whether a Christian could be a chief, given the link between chieftancy and traditional religion. Such prohibitions were deemed necessary to avoid Christianity being attenuated by syncretism. Today, however, drumming and dancing have been incorporated into Christian worship without compromising the Christian message, and even ministers of religion are prepared to be chiefs within certain limits. Pagans are now complaining that Christians are drumming at times of the year when drums should be silent. It could be argued that traditional forms of worship have been saved or redeemed for authentic Christian purposes and do not represent a syncretic intrusion as they might have done at one time.
Your reference to Christmas trees and their fetish decorations are a similar point. Most Western Christians, one suspects, would be surprised to learn that their Church Christmas Trees have pagan origins. Similarly, I'm sure that the way Northern Europeans look at the Christian year are heavily influenced by the seasons, as were the old religions: the birth of Christ as the rebirth of the sun after the winter solstice, and the spring with the Resurrection. The Swedish Santa Lucia festival clearly has pagan roots. The adaptation of traditional religious cultural practices to Christian purposes, however, does not necessarily mean that they are evidence of syncretism, though I'm sure that is sometimes the case.
As the good book says "If thine eye offends thee, pluck it out". There are times when traditional practices, (drums, Christmas trees etc.), should be eschewed if they threaten the integrity of the gospel, but as with individuals when they have been "saved" they can be usefully employed for the extension of the Christ's Kingdom.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
All cultures borrow from one another--as Charles Seeger said, "plagiarism is the basis of all culture." And religion is a cultural system. All religions are syncretic to some degree, and all try to deny it (was Judaism influenced by Zoroastrianism during the exile? If so, does that mean Christianity has Zoroastrian elements? I'd say yes to both. There are those who would disagree with some intensity.) Purity is an idol.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mary LA
Shipmate
# 17040
|
Posted
A more critical naming of the conflicted aspects of syncretism is cultural appropriation, where a dominant culture appropriates and trivialises or distorts the symbols and practices of a minority group. One example would be the criticism levelled at New Age practitioners who adopt Native American sweat lodges, shamanic tribal names or rituals without acknowledgement or permission.
Another aspect of syncretism is the derogatory or patronising references to the indigenization or cultural assimilation of Western religious practices as folk Catholicism or primitive or pagan elements, a negative label that ignores the historic acculturation of Western Christianity with all its pagan and cultural accretions.
Syncretism is a very complex and interesting process, one of the great revitalising dynamics of Christianity.
--------------------
“I often wonder if we were all characters in one of God's dreams.”
― Muriel Spark
Posts: 499 | From: Africa | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
I think we need to distinguish between "syncretism" and "inculturation" .
I personally found some very interesting thoughts here .
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
Thank you for that link, Desert Daughter. A fascinating paper. I suspect, as the author says, there are polemic reasons for the over-simplified caricature of Western theology (we'll pass over for the present the distortions in that caricature). Nevertheless, what Amaladoss seems to grappling with is neither inculturation or syncretism but with how to give an account of Christ in engagement with, in the particular case, Indian religion (which I take to mean Hinduism), without emptying that account of its dogmatic content. What fascinates me is how you do that at the Christian/Hindu intersection in a way that remains faithful to that dogmatic content (contextualised appropriately, of course).
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599
|
Posted
Thanks for the link, Desert daughter. An observation.
In discussions with other religions, one must be careful to use universal terminology. I found it useful to break it down to:
Who gets saved?
Who does the saving?
What IS salvation?
For example, a very rudimentary explanation is found in the Bhagavatgita. In a battle between good and evil, represented by the war between the armies of the Pandavas and the Kauravas.
Who is saved?
The humble and the poor in spirit.
Quote
Arjuna, representing the Pandavas, went to Dvaraka to meet Krishna, his friend, philosopher and guide. Learning about his plan from spies, Duryodhana, too, rushed there to represent the Kauravas. Both reached Dvaraka on the same day. As both were related to Krishna, they proceeded direct to his bedchamber. Krishna was fast asleep. Duryodhana, who was the first to enter, sat by the headboard of the bed, while Arjuna stood at the foot of the bed, arms folded in respect. When Krishna woke up, his eyes first fell on Arjuna and then he turned to see Duryodhana.
http://www.tattvaloka.com/magazine/october-2009/article/whom-does-god-help
When Arjuna approaches Krishna, he humbles himself, sits at the FOOT of the bed.
10"But when you are invited, go and recline at the last place, so that when the one who has invited you comes, he may say to you, 'Friend, move up higher'; then you will have honor in the sight of all who are at the table with you. Luke 14
..........
Who does the saving?
Only God saves.
Quote
Scarcely had Krishna finished when Arjuna said with reverence and without hesitation, “I would be content if you are with us, though you will wield no weapon.” Duryodhana could hardly contain his joy at what he thought was Arjuna’s ridiculous choice. Arjuna chose Krishna, and Duryodhana chose Krishna’s resources.
Arjuna depends on Krishna, Duryodhana depend on Krishna's weapons.
6Then he said to me, "This is the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel saying, 'Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit,' says the LORD of hosts.Zechariah 4
.........
What IS salvation?
Salvation is unity with God. If you're not united with God now, it's pretty unlikely you'll be having much to do with Him in the afterlife.
The article makes a point about contextualization. Having shared the Gospel with Hindu intellectuals, it's pretty telling that they are befuddled about the incompleteness of the explanations in their religions about the salvation process, and the equivalent of the Cross in it. They really have to make a choice when confronted with the Gospel.
--------------------
Ship's crimp
Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So Sodom and Gomorrah have no chance then ?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
So Sodom and Gomorrah have no chance then ?
Colossians 2:15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
--------------------
Ship's crimp
Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Indeed.
So despite your saying "If you're not united with God now, it's pretty unlikely you'll be having much to do with Him in the afterlife.", they will receive a bearable judgement ?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599
|
Posted
Martin, S& G were pre Cross.
Post Cross, the world has to assess new data...
--------------------
Ship's crimp
Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
Much of Galatians and Colossians is concerned with this issue. In Galatians the Christians are being bullied into adopting the Jewish law as necessary to their faith, in Colossians they are drifting back into pagan practices. And yet the watchword of Colossians is 'Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.' (Col 2:16). This is an indicator that Christians are free to do stuff - as long as its not actually sinful - as long as their motivation is right. As a result I'm not one who worries about things like Harry Potter or Dungeons and Dragons as a definite 'no-no'; it's important to understand where the possible danger lie - gaining power for ourselves rather than being the means through whom the Holy Spirit works - but these things aren't a danger in themselves, only if we let them warp our attitudes.
Of course the dangerous element of syncretism is when people come to the point of arguing that all religions are equally valid, and that we therefore have a duty NOT to evangelise people who belong to religion 'X'. Now it may well make sense not to rush into such evangelism - a lot of damage is done by people who have no idea how to do it appropriately - but that's not the same statement...
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599
|
Posted
The article is written well (RC, check, Jesuit, check!) in the sense that it has dealt with the relevant issues (although the liberation theology comment was a red herring IMO).
But because it has committed itself to its views on the issues, it can be easily analysed and faulted for weaknesses (not that there are many).
Should be interesting to critique those views. What we need here is someone to play Devil's Advocate...
--------------------
Ship's crimp
Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
footwasher, so all pre-cross are saved regardless of how revolting they were, whereas good atheists, humanists, etc, etc (Jews ? Muslims ? Hindus ?) won't want to have anything to do with God in the resurrection ?
Because they don't CHOOSE Him now ? What is this choice ? This choosing ?
This work of the flesh ?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
Well, the badness of syncretism lies in the fact that adherents to a particular religion believes (or ought to believe*) that their religion is true. If, say, someone believes that Christ is God, and that he is the only saviour, it makes no sense to also believe in, say, Krishna. (That doesn’t mean, of course, that one cannot find good things in other religions, and keep them. St. Paul did say, in 1Thess 5:21, that we should “test everything, and hold fast to what is good.”)
It seems that ‘syncretism’ is negative, that it means mixing what cannot be mixed. Like mixing alchemy with chemistry, or (certain forms of) homeopathy with real medicine. (I’m not saying what is what...)
* I see no other (fundamental) reason to adhere to anything.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
A false dichotomy k-mann, leo.
One can surely start from any culture - Hinduism is a culture, so is Islam - and inoculate it with Christ. By reaching out to it, respectfully, even reverently where it is.
About any of us tried I'd have thought.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Syncretism is very good. it is madness not to learn from truth, wherever it may be found and arrogance to suggest that any one religion is the sole repository of truth.
Yes, but you are implying that you have a basis for deciding what is the truth. Islam says Jesus is just a prophet, a statement which the New Testament doesn't cope with well.
quote:
22 Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
1 Jn 2:22-23
Now we can either basis our discernment of the truth on the 'faith once and for all delivered to the saints', or we can conform to the latest fashion.
Now this is not to deny that there aren't moments when other religions provide illumination of elements of Christianity that we've lost sight of. But that's not to accept that they are pointing to a truth that's not there in Christianity, just making it easier to understand by offering another perspective.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599
|
Posted
Martin wrote:
footwasher, so all pre-cross are saved regardless of how revolting they were, whereas good atheists, humanists, etc, etc (Jews ? Muslims ? Hindus ?) won't want to have anything to do with God in the resurrection ?
Because they don't CHOOSE Him now ? What is this choice ? This choosing ?
This work of the flesh ?
Martin, what I say now will probably sound so bland that its meaning may not be immediately apparent.
I think there are societies that have been immersed in bad practices for so long that they may have lost track of right and wrong.
Jonah 4:11 NET
Should I not be even more concerned about Nineveh, this enormous city? There are more than one hundred twenty thousand people in it who do not know right from wrong, as well as many animals!”
God reaches out to them, His children, until they decide to obey or disobey. Obviously, Nineveh obeyed. S&G were reached out to (several times) and they, also, obviously, disobeyed. However, the message they received was relevant to their times, and therefore, partial. Jesus claims that the message He was giving Israel was full orbed and would have caused repentance from even S&G.
Matt 11:23NASB
"And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day.
What did God require pre-Cross? Desire to be righteous. We know that no one could actually be righteous enough for union with God before the Cross, but the desire could lead them TO God (the pedagogue was the faithful family servant who delivered the young children to school), until Christ came.
Gal 3:24ESV
So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.
NOW that Christ has come, those who are presented with the Cross as the solution to righteousness leading to union with God must decide if IS truth. Hindus, Muslims, anybody who desires to be righteous must ask himself/herself if the Cross is indeed truly THAT solution...
The people I talked with probably lived more principled and moral lives than I do. Their belief was that God would acknowledge their life choices. I only asked them if God had provided them the empowerment to follow through on those choices...
--------------------
Ship's crimp
Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
NOW that Christ has come, those who are presented with the Cross as the solution to righteousness leading to union with God must decide if IS truth. Hindus, Muslims, anybody who desires to be righteous must ask himself/herself if the Cross is indeed truly THAT solution...
I don't see why they should have any interest in the cross. They have their own path.
You may as well suggest that Christians be presented with the truth claims of Muhammad, pbuh, as the seal of the prophets.
Or with the sweeping generosity of Hinduism as against the seeming arrogance of some Christians.
Nearer to home, how do protestants respond when 'presented' with the claims of the Petrine ministry? Or is invincible ignorance preferable.
As it stands, some Christians seem unable to view anyone else except through the lens of their pre-existing prejudices.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
It seems like most of the times I've even heard the word "syncretism" used, it was being used pejoratively - and in reference to the blending of beliefs and practices, not necessarily cultures (to the degree that these can be separated out).
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Well, the badness of syncretism lies in the fact that adherents to a particular religion believes (or ought to believe*) that their religion is true. If, say, someone believes that Christ is God, and that he is the only saviour, it makes no sense to also believe in, say, Krishna. (That doesn’t mean, of course, that one cannot find good things in other religions, and keep them. St. Paul did say, in 1Thess 5:21, that we should “test everything, and hold fast to what is good.”)
It seems that ‘syncretism’ is negative, that it means mixing what cannot be mixed. Like mixing alchemy with chemistry, or (certain forms of) homeopathy with real medicine. (I’m not saying what is what...)
* I see no other (fundamental) reason to adhere to anything.
The problem with this is that it is a Western view, through and through.
My academic advisor right now (at an interfaith theological union) is a Buddhist priest, and it's always enlightening (no pun intended) to hear him speak about this sort of thing. For example, he objects to pretty much every word used to classify what we Westerners call "religion": religion, faith, faith tradition, theology - none of these apply to Buddhism, he says.
Since "religion" comes from the root, "to bind together" (same root as the word "ligament"), I don't understand why religion is inappropriate to use of Buddhism, unless he's objecting to its connotations (dogma, hierarchies, that sort of thing).
But the point is that folks in the global East think differently - very differently - than we Westerners, to the extent that we don't always even share categories (such as "salvation") that would really allow us to compare, contrast, and combine our traditions.
As for the charge of racism in whites adopting Native traditions, I think this is a good place to distinguish between syncretism (which my spell checker thinks should be "cretinism" - haha!) and inculturation. Using someone else's traditions to express your own beliefs is not inculturation, and probably not really syncretism either (as it doesn't adopt the belief systems that go with the traditions). Inculturation has to do with translating a tradition (such as Christianity) into a local idiom, and this is precisely where Christianity has picked up pagan practices. Lest we forget, Christianity originated in the Middle East, so as it spread through Europe, it was inculturated for Europeans largely through adapting pagan traditions of the Europeans who were converting. That's proper inculturation. The old symbols became invested with new meanings, but they were the symbols of the people who were using them to express their new beliefs. Same thing happened in Latin America. The trouble is when whites, who have historically done most of the colonizing in the last few centuries, swipe the traditions of non-whites to express white beliefs and ways of thinking. It's inauthentic, and fairly typical of unacknowledged white privilege.
I had a class once where one of the students was an Egyptian Christian (descended from immigrants, I think), and another was a white convert to Islam. The Egyptian Christian at one point expressed outrage toward the white Muslim for converting, because he had converted to a religion which, like hers, tends to be associated with people from particular ethnic backgrounds, and you can't pick or change your ethnic background. She felt it was an exercise of white privilege on his part to join a "non-white" religion.
I don't happen to agree with her, but I do think it's important to consider a view like hers, and how white privilege really does mean that white folks can feel free to go wherever they want, literally or metaphorically (as in the case of switching religions), while non-whites often don't feel free to do so - at least not in the US. But there's another layer to this: it's that contrast again between Western and non-Western thinking.
To the Western mind, you can pick any religion you want based on whether or not you agree with its tenets. For many non-Westerners, it's more about belonging. You don't just leave the traditions of your ancestors, or the shared religion of your family or other group, because you agree or disagree with something. That's not quite as much the point of religion. I'm over-simplifying (and I am a white Westerner, so I'm probably misrepresenting non-white, non-Western views somewhat), but the point is that there are fundamentally different ways of thinking out there.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
NOW that Christ has come, those who are presented with the Cross as the solution to righteousness leading to union with God must decide if IS truth. Hindus, Muslims, anybody who desires to be righteous must ask himself/herself if the Cross is indeed truly THAT solution...
I don't see why they should have any interest in the cross. They have their own path.
You may as well suggest that Christians be presented with the truth claims of Muhammad, pbuh, as the seal of the prophets.
Or with the sweeping generosity of Hinduism as against the seeming arrogance of some Christians.
Nearer to home, how do protestants respond when 'presented' with the claims of the Petrine ministry? Or is invincible ignorance preferable.
As it stands, some Christians seem unable to view anyone else except through the lens of their pre-existing prejudices.
As a demonstration of the use of 'boo words' to bias a presentation, I've seldom seen better: 'generosity v arrogance', 'prejudice' of Christians, rather than accepting we may have a reason for our discernments.
'They have their own path.' Who says? Why should I accept that conclusion - convenient though it is? Which Hindu path are we talking about; the one that includes caste division, suttee and thugs? Or just the nice bits that I agree with? So on what basis do I condemn the immolation of widows and the persecution of fellow Christians by Hindu fundamentalists? Those fundamentalists are just following 'their path'. The same with Muslims who execute apostates?
The questions which Leo's logic always leaves me with is: Were the earliest disciples wrong to convert the pagans of their day? Or was it only later that a bell was rung and it stopped being right to convert pagans? In today's world of a massive variety of living religions, which are 'fair game' to be converted, and which aren't. Presumably some are as evil as the decadent Graeco-Roman gods - or were those especially bad?
I suppose the other issue is the existence of Christian converts from all these religions; there are any number of such - so are you saying they were deceived into leaving them? Or are they deceiving themselves when they claim Christianity is so much better than the religions they came out of? When a Muslim reports a vision of Jesus which leads him to become a Christian, is he deceived?
Christianity in its NT formulations is remarkably 'arrogant'. Why people believe they can ignore those bits but cling on to the bits they're comfortable with never ceases to amaze me.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
A false dichotomy k-mann, leo.
One can surely start from any culture - Hinduism is a culture, so is Islam - and inoculate it with Christ. By reaching out to it, respectfully, even reverently where it is.
About any of us tried I'd have thought.
But that's not how the phrase 'syncretism' is used in normal language.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
Syncretism becomes a problem only when you try to combine things that are really contradictory, such as monotheism and polytheism (though historically, there are workarounds--such as the way pagan gods were blended into Christian saints in Mediterranean cultures).
Other than that--the Light is universal and you should take truth where you find it.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Timothy the Obscure quote:
Syncretism becomes a problem only when you try to combine things that are really contradictory.
Other than that--the Light is universal and you should take truth where you find it.
Timothy the Obscure, thank you, that more or less says it for me.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
My only observation is that I'm under the impression that "syncretism" is usually used in the sense of the attempt to "combine things that are really contradictory". Am I mistaken?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Welease Woderwick
Sister Incubus Nightmare
# 10424
|
Posted
I very rarely post in Purgatory but:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
...Hinduism is a culture, so is Islam...
is so startlingly stupid and ill-informed that I have to call it!
Martin what you are saying is a complete and utter load of twaddle.
- - - -
And yes, I am happy and proud to be called a syncretist.
--------------------
I give thanks for unknown blessings already on their way.
Fancy a break in South India?
Accessible Homestay Guesthouse in Central Kerala, contact me for details
What part of Matt. 7:1 don't you understand?
Posts: 48139 | From: 1st on the right, straight on 'til morning | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
[T]he Light is universal and you should take truth where you find it.
This is a totally vacuous phrase unless all is illusion and we merely construct our own truth. Otherwise there must be a basis on which to make one's decision about what is true about what cannot not be subjected to a double blind trial.
For example:
1) Zeus had a catamite, Ganymede. The Greeks clearly didn't have a problem with that. We do. Which of us is right, and why?
2) One of the greatest mystics of all time, Bernard of Clairvaux, also preached the second crusade and was instrumental in the establishment of the military orders in the Catholic church. We find that attitude to war unacceptable.
3) Both sides in the gay and abortion debates believe that they have the Light. On what basis do we find make that decision?
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
'They have their own path.' Who says? Why should I accept that conclusion - convenient though it is? Which Hindu path are we talking about; the one that includes caste division, suttee and thugs? Or just the nice bits that I agree with? So on what basis do I condemn the immolation of widows and the persecution of fellow Christians by Hindu fundamentalists? Those fundamentalists are just following 'their path'. The same with Muslims who execute apostates?
The questions which Leo's logic
Logic is a human construction. God is beyond logic.
As for 'nice bits', it is important to judge all religions, including their bad bits, by their good bits. Include child abuse and the crusades in Christianity.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
As for 'nice bits', it is important to judge all religions, including their bad bits, by their good bits. Include child abuse and the crusades in Christianity.
I repeat - ON WHAT BASIS are the crusades and child abuse bad? They are currently unfashionable in most circles, but that doesn't move them into the 'bad' category, unless morality is merely a matter of majority voting. As I've commented above: 'Zeus' and Bernard of Clairvaux endorse them...
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599
|
Posted
Churchgeek wrote:
The problem with this is that it is a Western view, through and through.
That's why you need to find parallels, equivalents: god>Christ>Krishna. If they don't exist in Buddhism, you're trying to compare apples with oranges.
My academic advisor right now (at an interfaith theological union) is a Buddhist priest, and it's always enlightening (no pun intended) to hear him speak about this sort of thing. For example, he objects to pretty much every word used to classify what we Westerners call "religion": religion, faith, faith tradition, theology - none of these apply to Buddhism, he says.
Since "religion" comes from the root, "to bind together" (same root as the word "ligament"), I don't understand why religion is inappropriate to use of Buddhism, unless he's objecting to its connotations (dogma, hierarchies, that sort of thing).
But the point is that folks in the global East think differently - very differently - than we Westerners, to the extent that we don't always even share categories (such as "salvation") that would really allow us to compare, contrast, and combine our traditions.
That's why I do not include Buddhism in my examples of theistic religions. Buddhism, the Hinayana/Theravada version, is atheistic. Whilst the goal of practitioners of Hinduism is "moksha", union with God, in Buddhism, it is "nirvana", nihilism, release from the reincarnation cycle. Therefore, "binding together", "faith, faith tradition, theology", "salvation" , have no meaning.
--------------------
Ship's crimp
[ 30. June 2012, 15:48: Message edited by: footwasher ]
--------------------
Ship's crimp
Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Welease Woderwick I'm overwhelmed by the cogency of your rebuttal.
I repeat Islam and Hinduism are above ALL cultures. They define a billion people apiece. Just like Christianity does and is a culture. Metaculture if you want.
In what way are they NOT cultures ?
Leo, Martin BS surely ?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Double post mea culpa.
Footwasher, if Sodom and Gomorrah are anektoteros then Bethsaida and Chorazin are anektos.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
As for 'nice bits', it is important to judge all religions, including their bad bits, by their good bits. Include child abuse and the crusades in Christianity.
I repeat - ON WHAT BASIS are the crusades and child abuse bad? They are currently unfashionable in most circles, but that doesn't move them into the 'bad' category, unless morality is merely a matter of majority voting. As I've commented above: 'Zeus' and Bernard of Clairvaux endorse them...
I am not a relativist. I believe that there is an objective morality but its basis/source is a problem for philosophers to sort out.
My main point is that too many Christians compare the best bits of their religion with the worst bits of the others.
[ 30. June 2012, 17:52: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I am not a relativist. I believe that there is an objective morality but its basis/source is a problem for philosophers to sort out.
My main point is that too many Christians compare the best bits of their religion with the worst bits of the others.
Oh come on, this is getting annoying. On what basis do you decide the moral acceptability of abortion, homosexuality or the conversion of Jews, Hindus or member of the church of Zeus and Ganymede? Or don't you know? In which case why should I bother to believe ANYTHING your church says?
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Double post mea culpa.
Footwasher, if Sodom and Gomorrah are anektoteros then Bethsaida and Chorazin are anektos.
S&G are warned to turn away from sin.
Bethsaida and Chorazin are warned to believe in the One who takes away sin.
Hebrews 12:25 See to it that you do not refuse Him who is speaking. For if those did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape who turn away from Him who warns from heaven.
--------------------
Ship's crimp
Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So everyone who doesn't turn, burns, but S&G would have turned, so they don't burn.
Uh huh.
So the Jew smoke burns twice. Nice.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I am not a relativist. I believe that there is an objective morality but its basis/source is a problem for philosophers to sort out.
My main point is that too many Christians compare the best bits of their religion with the worst bits of the others.
Oh come on, this is getting annoying. On what basis do you decide the moral acceptability of abortion, homosexuality or the conversion of Jews, Hindus or member of the church of Zeus and Ganymede? Or don't you know? In which case why should I bother to believe ANYTHING your church says?
Glad you are getting annoyed.
I do not want anyone to believe anything a church 'says'. churches are about journeying together in discernment, not laying down immutable truths.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
So everyone who doesn't turn, burns, but S&G would have turned, so they don't burn.
Uh huh.
So the Jew smoke burns twice. Nice.
Hey! You're drifting into another issue!
Quote
We begin to understand what this means if we take a further step in the argument. In the biblical lawcourt the law, which the judge himself has promulgated, is the covenant between God and his people. For God, to act righteously means to act in accordance with the covenant. For his people, to appeal for vindication in the heavenly lawcourt is to appeal to the covenant. Justification is therefore God's declaration that certain people are within the covenant. And the significance of this is that God's covenant people are a forgiven people: the covenant was designed in the first place as the means of undoing the sin of humanity. God called Abraham to reverse the sin of Adam.4 And when Israel herself sinned, and turned her vocation (to be a light to the world) into the arrogant boast that she and she alone was within the covenant, God promised to establish the covenant by renewing it so that Israel would be transformed and sin dealt with once and for all.5 The Gospel will do what the law could not do so that God's covenant promises may stand. The Gospel, in other words, will provide justification for the ungodly, whereby Gentiles and sinners will be declared 'righteous'—that is, within the covenant. The language of the lawcourt, of the 'wondrous exchange' whereby Christ takes my sin and I take his righteousness,6 is not only describing individual salvation, but is the explanation of how Abraham's worldwide people are righteously declared to be in the right.
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Justification_Biblical_Basis.pdf
--------------------
Ship's crimp
Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I do not want anyone to believe anything a church 'says'. churches are about journeying together in discernment, not laying down immutable truths.
I have heard this kind of thing before but it seems to be an assertion in support of which no evidence is ever adduced. Could you attempt to justify the statement, please, leo?
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
There's only ONE issue footwasher.
Jesus.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I completely agree with Tom Wright. Just as you do. Differently apparently.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I completely agree with Tom Wright. Just as you do. Differently apparently.
Martin wrote:
...whereas good atheists, humanists, etc, etc (Jews ? Muslims ? Hindus ?) won't want to have anything to do with God in the resurrection ?
Footwasher checklist when meeting "good" people
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Are these part of Abraham's worldwide family?
Yup!
Was the Gospel clearly shared?
Yup!
Are they confused about how Jesus Christ fits into their worldview?
Yup!
Is tribalism/inertia an obstacle?
Yup!
Must they introspect, reflect, ponder, pray, discuss?
Yup!
If spiritual/intellectual pride prevents reflection are these "wicked", even if they desire righteousness, but try to attain it by works?
Yup. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Ezekiel 3
18"When I say to the wicked, 'You will surely die,' and you do not warn him or speak out to warn the wicked from his wicked way that he may live, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand.
--------------------
Ship's crimp
Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I am not a relativist. I believe that there is an objective morality but its basis/source is a problem for philosophers to sort out.
My main point is that too many Christians compare the best bits of their religion with the worst bits of the others.
Oh come on, this is getting annoying. On what basis do you decide the moral acceptability of abortion, homosexuality or the conversion of Jews, Hindus or member of the church of Zeus and Ganymede? Or don't you know? In which case why should I bother to believe ANYTHING your church says?
Glad you are getting annoyed.
I do not want anyone to believe anything a church 'says'. churches are about journeying together in discernment, not laying down immutable truths.
At some point and in some way, there must be a basis for your discernment. I'm asking you for what that basis is. The Catholic answer is 'what the church says'. The Protestant answer is 'what the bible says'. The liberal answer is 'what we think the Spirit is saying'. Each of those is coherent in their own terms. Or you may be offering an alternative. But which is it to be?
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
[T]he Light is universal and you should take truth where you find it.
This is a totally vacuous phrase unless all is illusion and we merely construct our own truth. Otherwise there must be a basis on which to make one's decision about what is true about what cannot not be subjected to a double blind trial.
For example:
1) Zeus had a catamite, Ganymede. The Greeks clearly didn't have a problem with that. We do. Which of us is right, and why?
2) One of the greatest mystics of all time, Bernard of Clairvaux, also preached the second crusade and was instrumental in the establishment of the military orders in the Catholic church. We find that attitude to war unacceptable.
3) Both sides in the gay and abortion debates believe that they have the Light. On what basis do we find make that decision?
I'm not sure how you got that from what I said. To say the Light is universal is just to say that all people have access to the Light, when they really pay attention to it. It doesn't guarantee that people will be right every time. But then, nothing can guarantee that (as if!).
Taking your examples one at a time:
I have no reason to believe that either Zeus or Ganymede ever actually existed. If there is any truth in that myth, it's of metaphorical sort that informs us about human nature rather than divine nature (as is often the case with Greek myth--that's why Freud found it so useful).
Bernard was led astray by political considerations. This should teach us to be cautious and humble in drawing conclusions from our leadings.
As far as I can tell, the anti-abortion crowd are not fans of the Inward Light, but are fixated on the letter (or someone's version of the letter) rather than the spirit. However, stepping carefully around the decaying ex-horse, I believe that discernment is a complicated thing, not to be done hastily, nor as a purely individualistic matter.
Complaints about syncretism tend to take the form: "This does not come from Christian tradition, therefore it should be rejected by Christians." If one believes, as many Christians have (C.S. Lewis was the most prominent recent advocate of this idea) that God has revealed truth to all humans, though it has been only partially understood outside of Christianity, then it is not problematic to believe that other religions and cultures can give us useful new perspectives on the truth.
While I don't say that we "merely construct our own truth," I do believe that everything that is apprehended is apprehended from some particular point of view--there is no escape from that, which means that "objectivity" is an incoherent construct. Consistency, however, is a different matter. One example--the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path contain nothing (as far as I can tell) that contradicts Christianity. One can say that the Four Noble Truths are an incomplete account of suffering, and false insofar as they claim to be complete, but that just makes them a special case, rather as Newton's laws are subsumed within general relativity. They can illuminate a Christian understanding of suffering, as the Eightfold path can inform a Christian understanding of right conduct, without replacing anything.
The alternative seems to be the position that one group holds an absolute monopoly on spiritual truth, and that seems so unlikely that I'm not prepared to bet on it (especially if the group in question is the one you identify with, but whatever...)
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Timothy the Obscure quote:
If one believes, as many Christians have (C.S. Lewis was the most prominent recent advocate of this idea) that God has revealed truth to all humans, though it has been only partially understood outside of Christianity, then it is not problematic to believe that other religions and cultures can give us useful new perspectives on the truth.
...And not only CS Lewis, but also Paul: " For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made." (Romans 1: 20).
You might have added that though Christians believe God is best revealed through Jesus it is still, again to quote the same apostle, only known and prophesied in part.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Taking your examples one at a time:
I have no reason to believe that either Zeus or Ganymede ever actually existed. If there is any truth in that myth, it's of metaphorical sort that informs us about human nature rather than divine nature (as is often the case with Greek myth--that's why Freud found it so useful).
Sorry - you're missing my central point which is that the Greeks regarded gay sex within a adult youth mentoring relationship to be not only normal but good for the both the participants; Zeus's relationship with Ganymede is a legitimation of that pattern of behaviour. We reject this argument - but I'm wanting to use it to illuminate more clearly WHY we do so; is it rationally driven, mere cultural disgust, or what? And how does this inform our wider moral decision making - note that the experience of Greek culture, as well as many others down the ages, can be taken to provide evidence that it's not bad for the boys in the relationships.
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Bernard was led astray by political considerations. This should teach us to be cautious and humble in drawing conclusions from our leadings.
Fair comment; indeed the propensity of the mainstream churches to line up behind fashionable political campaigns does deserve serious examination ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
As far as I can tell, the anti-abortion crowd are not fans of the Inward Light, but are fixated on the letter (or someone's version of the letter) rather than the spirit. However, stepping carefully around the decaying ex-horse, I believe that discernment is a complicated thing, not to be done hastily, nor as a purely individualistic matter.
Yeah, the 'fixated on the letter' appearance of a lot of Evangelicals is unhelpful at times, but it's a reaction to libruls desire to say 'This is what the Spirit is saying' when it's clear contradiction to what the 'letter' says. Of course the ultimate objective is to hear what God is saying; on a bad day Evangelicals can in practice jump from the question to their interpretation of the text without proper engagement with listening to God.
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Complaints about syncretism tend to take the form: "This does not come from Christian tradition, therefore it should be rejected by Christians." If one believes, as many Christians have (C.S. Lewis was the most prominent recent advocate of this idea) that God has revealed truth to all humans, though it has been only partially understood outside of Christianity, then it is not problematic to believe that other religions and cultures can give us useful new perspectives on the truth.
That's helpful; the question that remains is how we test those 'insights' as being 'on the truth' rather than being a deception.
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
While I don't say that we "merely construct our own truth," I do believe that everything that is apprehended is apprehended from some particular point of view--there is no escape from that, which means that "objectivity" is an incoherent construct. Consistency, however, is a different matter. One example--the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path contain nothing (as far as I can tell) that contradicts Christianity. One can say that the Four Noble Truths are an incomplete account of suffering, and false insofar as they claim to be complete, but that just makes them a special case, rather as Newton's laws are subsumed within general relativity. They can illuminate a Christian understanding of suffering, as the Eightfold path can inform a Christian understanding of right conduct, without replacing anything.
The alternative seems to be the position that one group holds an absolute monopoly on spiritual truth, and that seems so unlikely that I'm not prepared to bet on it (especially if the group in question is the one you identify with, but whatever...)
Hmm - that is clearly what the bible claims:
quote:
In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.
Heb 1: 1-2 and
quote:
Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people. 4 For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
Jude 3,4
So for my money, we should have this degree of certainty: it is NOT healthy to rejoice in uncertainty. YMMV
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I do not want anyone to believe anything a church 'says'. churches are about journeying together in discernment, not laying down immutable truths.
I have heard this kind of thing before but it seems to be an assertion in support of which no evidence is ever adduced. Could you attempt to justify the statement, please, leo?
Not that would satisfy you.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
