Dr. Hyun-Kyung then spoke to the assembly about her view of the Holy Spirit and the popular gods of Korean religiosity. She said, “Korea \is a land of spirits full of Han – anger, resentment, bitterness and grief. Living people’s responsibility is to listen to the Han-ridden spirits and take part in the spirits’ work of righting the wrong. It is through the cries of those ancestor spirits that Koreans are able to hear the voice of the Holy Spirit” (Lyles, 286).

She then called upon the assembly to renounce Western, human-centered theological assumptions. “This must be the time we have to reread the Bible from the perspective of birds, water, trees and mountains. Learning to think like a mountain, changing our center from human beings to all living beings, has become our responsibility in order to survive” (Lyles, 286). At the end of her speech, some elegates stood in ecstatic applause, while others sat in stunned silence.

Within weeks of the Canberra conference, Christian theologians from around the world began writing their responses to Chung Hyun Kyung’s speech. Some applauded her attempt to contextualize Korean theology, others claimed she had committed the age-old sin of heretical syncretism. It is the purpose of this paper to examine and define the various aspects of syncretism. At the end, we will return to Hyun Kyung’s speech to ascertain what category she belongs in. The Bible and Syncretism

Peter Beyerhaus wrote in an article entitled “Syncretism in the Old Testament:”

“The word ‘syncretism’ does not occur in the Bible. But the fact of syncretism has been present throughout the history of Israel and Christianity.

I would define syncretism as the unconscious attempt to undermine the uniqueness of a religion by equating its elements with those of other belief systems. Syncretism equates heterogeneous religious elements and thereby changes their original meaning without admitting such a change.

The whole history of Israel as described in the Old Testament is a gigantic fight for the validity of the First Commandment. The attacks against Jehovah (YHWH) faith came from two directions, from inside and from outside” (49).

As the people of Israel stood before Moses in the Desert of Sinai, he gave them the following warning from Yahweh:

“My angel will go ahead of you and bring you into the land of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites and Jebusites, and I will wipe them out. Do not bow down before their gods or worship them or follow their practices. You must demolish them and break their sacred stones to pieces… Do not make a covenant with them or with their gods. Do not let them live in your land, or they will cause you to sin against me, because the worship of their gods will certainly be a snare to you” (Exodus 23:23,24,32,33 NIV). The Old Testament record tells us the people of Yahweh failed to drive out the inhabitants in the Promised Land. Before long, God’s chosen people had adopted the ways of the Phoenician- Canannite fertility cults and polluted the worship of Jehovah with pagan practices. God sent judges to call the people back to their covenant relationship with Him. The author of Judges wrote: “When the judge died, the people returned to ways even more corrupt than those of their fathers, following other gods and serving and worshiping them. They refused to give up their evil practices and stubborn ways” (Judges 2:19, NIV). The ancient people of Canaan ensnared the Israelites with the secret practices of Baal and Asherah, practicing magic and spiritism. Peter Beyerhaus writes: “Instead of reinterpreting the elements of Baalism in the light of Jehovah revelation, Israel’s religion became Canaanized. Jehovah came to have features of Baal” (49).

During the time of the Assyrian and Babylonian conquests of Israel, the Hebrew people had reduced Jehovah down to one deity among the many gods in the Oriental pantheon.

God sent prophets and righteous kings to rebuke and correct his covenant nation, but they refused to listen. The author of Second Kings wrote: “They would not listen, but persisted in their former practices. Even while these people were worshiping the Lord, they were serving their idols” (2 Kings 17:41). The people of Israel had blended the worship of Yahweh with the pagan worship of idols. They had broken the First Commandment: “You shall have no other gods before me” (Ex. 20:3). God brought foreign armies against Israel as punishment for their duplicity. In the midst of this correction, Jehovah continued to call Israel back to their covenant relationship with Him.

Jesus entered the scene during the Roman occupation of Israel. His inaugurating message to the nation was: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near” (Matthew 4:17). Standing in the position of an Old Testament prophet, Jesus called the nation of Israel to return to the worship of Yahweh. Preaching in their synagogues and villages he called the people to once again: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind” (Luke 10:27). Jesus spoke to Jew and Gentile alike: “He called the crowd to him long with his disciples and said; ‘If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me’” (Mark 9:34). Jesus was not instituting a new religion, but rather inaugurating the promised Kingdom of God. This kingdom incorporated the nations of the world. They were to leave behind their perverted idolatry and become loyal followers of Yahweh.

After his death and resurrection, the disciples of Jesus were faced with the age-old problem of how to interact with their Gentile neighbors. They wanted to maintain their allegiance to Jesus while welcoming Gentile converts into the fellowship of Christians. Did Gentile Christians need to adhere to Jewish culture? What Gentle practices should be accepted or rejected in the Body of Christ? In order to address these concerns, the disciples met in Jerusalem (50 CE) to determine the boundaries for acceptable practices of Gentile converts. They wrote a letter to Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia stating: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things” (Acts 15:28, 29). The edict of the Jerusalem Council did not solve all of problems in Gentile churches. We discover in the epistles of the Paul numerous instructions and admonitions concerning correct worship of Christ. He wrote to the church in Corinth: “Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? Do I mean then that a sacrifice offered to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons” (I Corinthians 10:18-21).

The churches in Galatia were struggling with correct doctrine. Paul wrote to them saying:

“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel – which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned” (Galatians 1:6-8). As the early church grew with Gentile converts, the challenge of the disciples was to maintain the purity of the gospel message in the midst of cultural diversity. The story of Jesus, not only changed individual lives, but it impacted communities and entire nations. When gospel and culture collided, one of two things happened:

(1) The gospel encountered the culture and transformed it so that it would glorify God; or

(2) The culture absorbed the gospel, perverting the core message of Christ, resulting in a new syncretistic religion. Definitions of Syncretism

Scott Moreau writes: “Throughout the centuries since the New Testament era, the church has constantly wrestled over the issues of culture in relationship to Christian commitment”

(Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions, 924). He defines syncretism as: “The blending of one idea, practice, or attitude with another: Traditionally among Christians it has been used of the replacement or dilution of the essential truths of the gospel through the incorporation of non-Christian elements” (924).

Moreau suggests there are three ways to interpret syncretism:

(1) All churches are culture based, therefore, every church is syncretistic;

(2) People who try define syncretism are usually those who are in power. Consequently they label any practice that threatens the established order as syncretistic; and

(3) All churches are in some ways syncretistic because no church is free of the accretions of culture.

Moreau’s categories coincide with the anthropological position that all cultures assimilate and incorporate various forms (language, rituals, symbols, signs) from other cultures. Because the church is an institution within a particular culture, it will reflect various aspects of its host culture. Consequently, the nature of Christianity allows a certain measure of cultural syncretism.

According to Alan Tippett, in his article “Christopaganism or Indigenous Christianity,” the word ‘syncretism’ is an “ethnological derivation of a word which takes us back to political events in early Crete where two parties coalesced (sunkretizo) thus giving birth to a noun meaning the union of opposites (two Cretan parties united against a third, forming a unit, sunkretismos)” (419).

Sunkretizo carried a positive connotation of two parties coming together to fight a common enemy. It fell into disuse for over a thousand years, but was revived by Erasmus in a letter to Melanchton in 1519.

According to Irina Levinskaya:

“Erasmus used the word in a traditional sense of Plutarch – to come to concord and fight mutual enemies together despite the differences of opinions which existed in the Humanist’s camp. His definition was widely adopted and used in a positive sense. However, in the 17th century the situation changed completely.

The word began to be used in a negative way. This unexpected and abrupt change was connected with the name of George Calixtus whose attempt to harmonize the different views of Protestants, and consequently all Christendom, met with universal disapproval. Though still used etymologically in a correct way, the word syncretism little by little had undergone a substantial change of meaning – the stress now was put not on unification against a mutual enemy, but on the incompatibility of different forces” (Syncretism – The Term and Phenomenon, 119).

George Calixtus had tried to call Protestant churches to doctrinal reconciliation. He encouraged cooperation and mutual access to each other’s rituals of communion and baptism.

Eugene Heideman wrote: “His opponents accused him of advancing an entirely unprincipled jumbling together of religions. Thus, syncretism came to have a bad name almost from the beginning of the Protestant era” (Syncretism, Contextualization, Orthodoxy, and Heresy, 38).

According to Peter van der Veer, during this period: “Syncretism was seen as a loss of identity, an

illicit contamination, a sign of religious decadence. In theological disputes it was generally

regarded as a betrayal of principles, or as an attempt to secure unity at the expense of truth.

Syncretism was seen as a corruption of the Truth” (Syncretism, Multiculturalism, and the

Discourse of Tolerance, 197). Working from this foundation, Protestant theologians

during this period were highly suspicious of anything that did not fit into their well defined

boundaries of orthodoxy.

As Protestant missions developed during the 18th and 19th centuries, the Church was

challenged by its encounters with animistic religions in the Southern Hemisphere. The initial

reaction of Protestant missionaries to pagan religions was complete rejection of anything that

resembled nature or idol worship. The fear of syncretism in Protestant circles was so great

that little communication occurred between missionaries and practitioners of pagan religions.

During this period, the term syncretism carried a negative connotation of two incompatible

belief systems combining to form a new religion. Fearing syncretism, Protestant missionaries

felt the best way to approach pagan cultures was to transform them with Western cultural forms.

According to Alan Tippett:

“As we examine the churches of the 19th and 20th century mission fields, we frequently find one of two situations. First, they may be thoroughly western in form, teaching and values and quite unrelated to the cultural ethos, so that people live in a borrowed, foreign kind of existence, or a dichotomous one which compartmentalizes the religious and secular. Or second, we may have the tragic manifestation of syncretistic worship, Christopagan, more animistic and ritual magical” (402). Roman Catholics have taken the brunt of accusations regarding Christopaganism. From its

early formation during the reign of Constantine, the Church in Rome has struggled to define its

role within culture. Challenged to make Christianity relevant to the pagan practices and religions

of fourth century Rome, the Roman Catholic Church adapted and incorporated pagan festivals and

rituals into Church liturgy. Many of the holy days celebrated in the Church today (Christmas,

Easter, Mass, All Saints Day, Halloween) find their origins in pagan festivals. The Catholic

Church has been charged with compromising the clear teachings of Scripture to “not make a

treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare to you. Break

down their altars, smash their sacred stones and cut down their Asherah poles (Ex. 34:12,13).

Throughout its history, the Roman Catholic Church has been divided concerning its relationship

with other religions. Its missionary societies have taken divergent attitudes toward inculturation

and accommodation of cultural forms and religious practices.

From within Catholic and Protestant traditions, we detect both positive and negative veins of

thought concerning the subject of syncretism. The following are a few definitions from

prominent theologians.

Catholic theologian Leonardo Boff offers six categories of syncretism in his book Church,

Charisma and Power: Liberation Theology and the Institutional Church:

1. Syncretism as addition: This occurs where “a religion is not yet developed as a fully distinct religion but rather is the addition or alternation of different beliefs, each part with its own structures, rites, and places of worship. This is the simple addition or joining of disparate elements without interrelating them” (90). An example of this would be attending a Catholic mass, then going to a Sweat Lodge ceremony for purification, and finishing off the day at a Peyote ceremony at the Native American Church. 2. Syncretism as accommodation: This occurs when “the religion of a dominated people is adapted to the religion of those who dominate, be it as a means for survival or as part of a strategy for resistance” (90). Many tribal people, conquered through colonial expansion, harmonized and adapted the feasts, rites, and beliefs of their Catholic or Protestant missionaries. 3. Syncretism as mixture: “All syncretism implies a mixture of some kind, but it is important to determine the type of mixture. In this case it is understood as a superficial mixture of elements and their juxtaposition, such as occurred within the Roman pantheon: gods and goddesses from Asia, Egypt, Syria, Persia, and all the conquered peoples sit among the Roman gods in the same temple. There is no external unity, only the diffused interior unity of the believer who feels the tremendous power of the Divine manifested in so many different types of gods” (90). This type of syncretism shows up in polytheistic societies (such as Hinduism) and is synonymous with dilution and confusion. 4. Syncretism as agreement: “There is no one unique revelation in history, rather, there are diverse paths for encountering the divine reality. All formulations of truth and religious experience are, by their nature, inadequate expressions; it is necessary to harmonize them as much as possible and thereby create a universal religion for all humanity” (90-91). This is a popular form of syncretistic universalism among liberal Catholics and Protestant theologians today. 5. Syncretism as translation: “When one religion uses the categories, cultural expressions, and traditions of another religion to communicate and translate its own essential message, one is said to be speaking of syncretism. Only those elements that are compatible with the identity of the host religion are utilized” (91). Since Vatican II, Roman Catholic missionaries have been employing this type of syncretism with tribal cultures around the world. Using categories within folk religions to reinterpret Catholicism in culturally relevant terminology. For example, Jesuit missionaries working among the Lakota Indians are comparing Christ to the Sacred Pipe (Jesus is the Sacred Pipe). 6. Syncretism as adaptation: “A religion first is exposed to different religious expressions and then assimilates them, interprets them, and recasts them according to its own identity. This is not blind acceptance; it involves adaptation and conversion which often leads to periods of crisis and uncertainty as to whether the religion's true identity is being preserved or diluted. It not only receives; it works with what it receives and imparts its own seal” (pg. 91). For example, the Roman church took the pagan festival of Eastre/Ostara (goddess of Spring) and adapted that religious festival to honor the resurrection of Christ creating the contemporary celebration of Easter.

According to Boff: “All of the great religions in history, those that have reached a high level

of development, have been the results of an immense process of syncretization. A religion, like

Christianity, preserves and enriches its universality as long as it is capable of speaking all

languages, incarnating itself in all cultures. This, I propose is valid syncretism. It is a process

that includes the other definitions of syncretism while, at the same time, going beyond” (91).

Leonardo Boff takes a positive view of syncretism that affirms its ability to adjust the Christian

message to various cultural milieu. He believes that “pure Christianity does not exist, never has

existed, never can exist” (92). True Christianity is a syncretised religion. Another prominent Catholic theologian, Robert Schreiter, defines syncretism as: “The mixing

of elements of two religious systems to the point where at least one, if not both, of the systems

loses basic structure and identity” (Constructing Local Theologies, 144). He proposes that

the term originated in the “Mediterranean basin at the beginning of the Common Era when

competing cults borrowed heavily from one another and were constantly reshaping themselves

into new forms” (144). The question that has plagued theologians for centuries is where to

draw the line between the content of the gospel and other religious systems. Who is responsible

to make the distinction? Is there a point where the gospel of Christ’s message can be lost?

Schreiter tries to answer these questions by establishing three sets of phenomena that occur in

syncretistic religions. 1. The first type of syncretism is found when “Christianity and the West African religions of the former slaves, Christian deity and saints are amalgamated into the Yoruba or Ibo pantheons and communicated with along the lines of African ritual” (146). This phenomena has also occurred in the Caribbean and South America. These syncretistic systems fuse together the themes of God, Jesus, Mary, archangels, and Catholic saints with the pantheistic gods of folk religions. Various Catholic practices (statues, holy water, candles, and consecrated Host) are incorporated into folk ceremonies in order to enhance the power of the ritual. 2. The second type of syncretism “blends Christian and non-Christian elements, but uses the framework of Christianity for its organizations” (147). The Rastafarians in Jamaica and the Independent Churches in Africa practice this kind of syncretism. The Bible is reinterpreted according to the vision of the founding patron. Usually there is singing, dancing, services of healing and exorcism, which follow along African ritual patterns. 3. The third form of syncretism is “a religious system that is highly selective in its appropriation of Christian elements” (147). Here we discover an established religion like Shinko Shukyo in Japan where Jesus, Muhammad and Buddha all share the same altar. Other religious systems may use Christian ceremonies like marriage or funeral rites in combination with Hindu, Buddhist, or Muslim practices.

Robert Schreiter also distinguishes between syncretistic practices and dual religious systems.

According to Schreiter, in dual systems “a people follows the religious practices of two distinct

systems. The systems are kept discrete: they can operate side by side” (145). He explains

three types of dual systems.

1. In the first system, Christianity and another tradition operate side by side. This is found among North American Indians and the Roman Catholic Church. Traditional beliefs and rituals have been practiced along with the Catholic faith. Both systems function independently from each other and those who practice both sets of rituals rarely see any contradiction between the two. 2. The second dual system occurs when “Christianity is practiced in its integrity, and selected elements from another system are also practiced. Often those elements are perceived by Christian leaders as incompatible and even contradictory to Christianity” (148). For instance, Christians in parts of West Africa still perform sacrifices to local deities and pray to Jesus in times of crisis. This type of dual system is maintained in order to gain access to all divine paths of mediation and healing. 3. The third type of dual system is called “double belonging…this occurs in Asia, where a particular religious tradition and citizenship in a nation are seen as inextricably bound up. These religious patterns are so deeply woven into the culture that it is no longer possible to discern easily what is religion and what is culture” (148). The question is: Can someone be a Buddhist and Christian at the same time? In this situation, does the Christian have to leave their Buddhist culture in order to practice Christianity?

Robert Schreiter contends that syncretism and dual religious systems occur when the gospel

and culture come into contact with one another. He writes: “ … culture is going to be faced with

a situation of change when the gospel becomes part of that culture. Not only do the gospel and

the church have to come to terms with the culture; the culture has to come to terms with the

gospel and the church. A less than successful coming together of these two realities can be at

the root of syncretism or the dual religious system” (150). Schreiter would agree with Boff

that historical Christianity is an amalgamation of borrowed beliefs and rituals arising out of

a variety of culture and gospel encounters. There is no such entity as “pure Christianity.” The

challenge for a modern theologian is to discover ways for the gospel and culture to coexist

together with integrity. Schreiter contends that there is both good and bad syncretism. Bad

syncretism occurs when the basic content of the gospel becomes excessively intertwined with

another belief system and the story of Jesus is forfeited. Good syncretism, according to Schreiter,

transpires when the gospel story is successfully incorporated into a different cultural belief

system. The result would be a cultural system that is enhanced by the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Catholic theologians are divided over the issue of syncretism. There is a wide spectrum of

opinion regarding the interaction and borrowing of cultural forms when trying to communicate

the gospel of Jesus Christ. Some adhere to the structure, ritual, and theological pattern of the

historical Catholic Church believing that any accommodation to cultural diversity leads to

heresy. Others believe the Catholic Church must incorporate and adapt differing cultural

religious systems and rituals into the amalgamation of Church diversity in order to remain

culturally relevant. Roman Catholics are not the only ones grappling with the problem of

gospel verses different religious systems. Twentieth century Protestants are also divided on the

issue of syncretism.

Harvie M. Conn quotes African theologian Byang Kato as saying “syncretism occurs when

critical and basic elements of the Gospel are lost in the process of contextualization and are

replaced by religious elements from the receiving culture” (176). Here the concern is that

elements of a particular religion are uncritically absorbed into Christianity, resulting in a

watered down version of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Protestant missiologist Alan Tippett defines syncretism as “the union of two opposite forces,

beliefs, systems or tenets so that the unified form is a new thing, neither one nor the other”

(Readings in Dynamic Indigeneity, 404). Tippett defines only two types of syncretism.

1. The first type is “a distortion of Christian theology by mixing it with pagan myth to form a new kind of teaching” (404).

2. The second type is the use of cultural forms (symbols, signs, songs, drums, dance) to express Western hymnology or theology.

According to Tippett we must distinguish between two different kinds of processes. One

produces a form of Christopaganism; the other produces indigenous Christianity. Tippett

gives the following example of Christopaganism.

Juan, a small peasant village official, lives in a country where Spaniards conquered his people and forced his relatives to convert to Catholicism. Juan gives his account of the story of Jesus: “The Savior watches over people on the road. He dies on a cross to save the wayfarer from the Jews, who are devils, and who are as cold as the moon. The moon grew warmer when the Holy Child was born. He was the son of a virgin among the Jews who sent her away because they knew the Child would bring light. St. Joseph took her to Bethlehem where the Child was born. The sun grew warmer and the day brighter. The demons ran away and hid in the mountain ravines. Their activity is confined to night because the Savior watches over the day, for the sun is the eye of God. After three days the Holy Child started work as a carpenter. He made a door from a log. The log was too short so he stretched it out like a rope to the required length. Fearing him the people determined to kill him and the family fled from the village to village across the mountains. In one village he planted a cornfield. The people were bitten by a swarm of flies. The Savior said, ‘Don’t eat them, eat me instead.’ He visited the afterworld and then they nailed him to a cross so that people would remember that demons would be punished and would stop eating people” (408).

In this very confused account of Jesus we discover certain aspects of the Christian message.

Incorporated into this story is the journey to Bethlehem, Jesus birth, the flight to Egypt, his

occupation as a carpenter in Nazareth, his death on the cross, his descent into Hell and

mention of the sacramental partaking of his body. Also woven into this tall tale are portions

of Juan’s animistic beliefs in the sun and moon, cannibal demons who reside in the mountains

and only come out at night, the origin of the cornfield and a swarm of flies (Egyptian plagues?).

Juan’s ancestors took portions of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and combined them with their

folk religious beliefs resulting in the creation of a completely different set of beliefs.

Why Syncretism Occurs

In areas around the world where Christopaganism occurs, the Catholic Church had tried to

translate the Christian message using the cultural forms of the indigenous people. They often

substituted Christian personifications for pagan deities. For example, the African Orixas made

the following translations: (1) Oxala, the creator became Jesus; (2) Lemanja, mother of Oxala

became the Virgin Mary; (3) Ogun, god of iron, became Saint George; (4) Oxossi, god of the

forest, became Saint Sebastian; and (5) Xango, god of the storm, became Saint Jerome.

Addressing this type of literal translation, Daniel Shaw writes:

“Because literal translations are essentially culture-free with respect to the receptor context, people are free to interpret them as they like. Therefore, a syncretistic church often results from literal translation. A people’s worldview forces them to approach information from their frame of reference. When the words are under- stood but the meanings are not, the intentionality of those words is perceived in relation to a focal perspective and interpretive error is the natural (and expected) result. The translation then becomes the people’s understanding of Scripture rather than God’s Word” (Transculturation, 207).

The Catholic Church may have successfully changed the names of the old deities, but failed

to change the fundamental meanings and functions, resulting in a convoluted distortion of the

gospel message of Jesus Christ. Alan Tippet’s case study of Juan is a classic example of how

this type of syncretism occurs.

FOR THE COMPLETE PAPER (40 pp) PLEASE EMAIL RAY at ray@new <