herbswanson.com

The word "syncretism" is a fighting word among Western, ideologically-bound Christians. The Right Wing Faithful hurry around trying to destroy it, prevent it, and devote serious amounts of theological energy decrying its very existence. The Left Wing Faithful stand off to the side with a smug little grin on their faces, knowing that syncretism happens all the time and is really part of the divine plan. They love it as much as the "Fundies" hate it. As is so often the case with Western dualistic ideologues of both stripes, each has a point and misses the point.

The Oxford English Dictionary (Compact Edition) defines "syncretism" as being "Attempted union or reconciliation of diverse or opposite tenets or practices, esp. in philosophy or religion." The earliest use of the word given in the OED is dated 1618, and it's clear from the examples of its meaning given there that it had a negative connotation from the beginning. Trying to unite or reconcile different religious beliefs and practices, say between Protestants and Catholics, is a "bad" thing to do. It is so bad that we have had to invent a whole series of euphemistic terms—enculturation, indigenization, contextualization—in place of the word syncretism.

If we cut across the political correct grain and stick with the term syncretism, two fundamental or central points stand out. First, syncretism is an unavoidable result of the Christian missionary movement; one cannot transmit the faith across cultures without there being considerable adaptation of it in the new culture. Syncretism happens. Second, the fact that syncretism is unavoidable does not mean that it is all for the good nor does it mean that it is inherently wrong. My sense is that conservative Western Christians should fret about it a good deal less than they do, and liberal Christians of European antecedents need to worry about it a good deal more than they seem to.

The first point is that syncretism happens, and it happens to conservatives and evangelicals just as much as anyone else. The last issue of HeRB, HeRB 11, contains an article comparing the Korean and Thai Protestant experiences. In my research on the Korean church, I was deeply impressed by the argument made by several scholars that one of the reasons that the Korean churches have grown so rapidly is because of the way in which they have identified themselves with their culture. Korean

Protestant churches are truly indigenous in that they overtly, clearly share in the general religious consciousness of their society. Some scholars note that there is a particular convergence between Korean Pentecostalism and the traditional Korean religion, known among scholars as shamanism. Both emphasize the manipulation of spiritual powers, call on holy spiritual powers to dwell in them, engage in exorcism, and in general encourage an emotional faith focused on obtaining the good life, materially and spiritually, through prayer and other forms of propitiation of spiritual powers. Women are particularly identified with the old Korean traditions, and Christian women seem to be more likely to engage in shammanistic-like practices than men. It is worthy of note that there seems to be a direct correlation in Korea between Christian fundamentalism and the use of shammanistic-type religious practices. That is to say, the more conservative the church the more likely it is to have incorporated "old-time" Korean religion into its expressions of the Christian faith.

In the United States, the melding of patriotism and evangelicalism is one of the clearest examples of religious syncretism one can find anywhere. Syncretism happens. It is inevitable. When we stop to think about how humans communicate with each other in a culture, it becomes clear that local languages and cultures will always shape the Christian message to the local context. We should be thankful that they do, or else there could be no communication of anything across cultures, let alone something as complex and meaning-laden as the Christian faith.

Yet, it is also inevitable that humans corrupt everything we do. That is not some kind of perverse old-fashioned Calvinism, but a reality that hits us in the face every time we read or watch the news—or critically examine the world right around us. Syncretism itself, in similar fashion, unavoidably has a corrupting influence on the Christian faith that has to be taken seriously and addressed, as best we can, in the tradition of the Old Testament prophets. The Christian faith has to do with salvation (Conservative-speak) and liberation (Liberal-speak), but the church is forever in danger of loosing its "saltiness."

The very process of cross-cultural communication, that is, may be one cause of the church's failure to live in a faithful, Christ-like mold. As has happened in various ways here in Thailand, the church appropriates cultural forms that do not reflect the biblical message of liberation and salvation. Thus, as one important

example, the churches of Thailand put great store in the place of worship while devoting little attention to meeting the social, let alone the religious, needs of their neighbors. Missionaries, historically, emphasized physical healing and social service a part of the Christian "package" of salvation that they brought to Thailand. As a rule, however, Thai churches show far more inclination to follow the model of the temple ( wat ), which also emphasizes ritual and ceremony, than they do that of the missionaries. The biblical model of salvation-liberation repeatedly stresses the importance of serving God, the faithful, and the widows and orphans over against mere worship (Micah 6.6-8 cf. Mark 12.32-33); and it is a weakness of most Thai churches that they fail to reach out in healing love to the world around them.

The churches of Thailand are, in their own ways, just as syncretistic as those in Korea. Evangelical missionaries and other Westerners would do well to celebrate that fact more and worry about it less. How else is it possible to communicate the Good News of the faith in Thai cultural contexts? They should also stop trying to control the process of syncretization, since no foreigners are ever going to be able to do much about it one way or another in any event. Ecumenical missionaries (the few that there are any more) and other Westerners related to the churches of Thailand, on the other hand, should cease to think that the hope of the Thai church is to "make it more Thai" somehow. In the things that matter, it is already as Thai as Thai can be (or Karen, or Lahu, or Isarn, or Northern). They need to think more about ways that they can encourage a more serious engagement with the biblical message and the model of Christ among the churches.

That is to say, in sum, that the communication of the Gospel and the living of the Christian life in any cultural context anywhere in the world involves an ongoing tension between faith and culture. Faith must express itself through culture yet culture is never an adequate vehicle for the expression of the faith. If we denigrate culture, we look down on the God-given means by which we become Christians. God created us as culture-makers. If, on the other hand, we lionize our own or any other culture we stand in danger of turning it into an idol, placing its precepts and values above those reflected in Christ and Scripture. In the Incarnation, God both affirmed the ultimate value of culture as the vehicle for divine communication and activity—and also sought to transform radically the way humans understand both God and themselves.

Syncretism is God's gift to the church; without it we could not share the faith. Syncretism is also a two-edged sword, which can lead us away from faith as well as towards it. Western Christians, both of leftish and a rightish persuasions, seem to be so enamored with their own versions of ideological and theological correctness that they are unable to see both the beauty of culture and its pitfalls as a medium for religious communication.