What is the significance of syncretism

In addition to Zoroastrianism and the Hellenistic mystery religions, there was the profound influence of Greek philosophy.

There is also the connection between the logos of the pre-Socratic Heraclitus and the logos of John. Undoubtedly the most significant element of this synthesis was the acceptance of Greek humanism by thinkers such as first Justin Martyr and then later Thomas Aquinas and Erasmus.

Outside of the logos doctrine of John, scholarly work on the influences of Greek philosophy on the New Testament writers is not widely known or appreciated. David L. Balch's book Let Wives Be Submissive contains the proposal that Aristotle's ethics is behind the views expressed in 1 Pet. The most interesting work, however, is Norman W.

DeWitt's book St. Paul and Epicurus. The Epicureans were especially strong in Asia Minor, the center of Paul's missionary efforts.

Paul's home city Tarsus was ruled by Epicureans in the second century B. Like Paul, Epicurus composed many epistles to his friends, admonishing them and making the correct doctrine clear. Scholars have known for a long time that Paul's Greek vocabulary differs substantially from that of the Gospel writers. The following words are used rarely, if not at all, by the Gospel writers, but were standard words in Epicurean texts:. Makarismos cf. Calculus cf. It does not occur in the New Testament except in Paul.

Autarkes cf. Paul's meaning here is the same as Epicurus' conception of autarkes — being content with little or with what the circumstances provide. Aidios cf. It is used by Epicurus to describe his atoms. The only New Testament writer besides Paul to use it is the author of Jude.

Nouthetesis cf. Although there are no direct references to Epicurus, DeWitt has gathered an impressive list of allusions that are in his opinion unmistakable in their indication. Here are just some of them:. These were the watchwords of all Epicureans and DeWitt is convinced that Paul's reference is specific: that he is predicting the destruction of the many Epicureans he encountered in his travels in Asia Minor.

DeWitt is convinced the reference is specific to the Epicureans and not just general paganism. This is one of the most obscure phrases in all of the Pauline epistles. The beginning of Ephes. DeWitt's hermeneutical clue is to put these two verses into the Sitz im Leben of the times.

Ephesus was filled with faithful Epicureans who accepted no world except the physical one composed of atoms. The Christian converts whom Paul is addressing are therefore largely former Epicureans. Atoms of air were the main ingredients of a perfect soul. A state of ataxaria unperturbedness was the goal of Epicurean ethics. The Greek here is ta stoicheia. DeWitt prefers the King James translation because it correctly describes ta stoichea in physical terms. Although Paul and Epicurus come to decidedly different conclusions about the solution to the human predicament, they do, according to DeWitt, share some common ground.

Both Paul and Epicurus use the Greek word psych e as a mortal, fully corruptible soul. In contradistinction to the Gospel writers, who use psyche equivocally for humans, Jesus, and God, Paul makes it clear that all humans from Adam onward had only the mortal psyche until the coming of Christ, who is then able to miraculously bestow the immortality spirit pneuma upon us cf.

DeWitt's contention that Paul did not believe in eternal torment for unbelievers is perhaps the most controversial claim in his book. DeWitt also uses 1 Cor. DeWitt goes to great lengths in comparing Paul's famous passages on faith, hope, and charity in 1 Cor. It is, however, a common word in the ethics of Epicurus, along with faith and love.

Ultimately the philosophies of these two figures diverge radically. Although Paul uses Epicurean terminology concerning peace of mind and related concepts, the two ways to blessedness are quite different.

Epicurus thought that happiness in this life could be achieved by any person using right reason. Paul of course believed that humans could not possibly save themselves and that faith in Jesus Christ was the only medium for human salvations. As we have seen, the Principle of Religious Syncretism holds that when any two cultures meet and interact they will exchange religious ideas with the dominant culture prevailing in the exchange. For example, a small group of Spanish conquistadors essentially made Catholicism the religion of Latin America.

Similarly, but in a less violent way, Buddhism and Confucianism from China became the major religious traditions of Korea. Yet in both Latin America and Korea strong indigenous spiritual traditions remained, subtly influencing and sometimes transforming the dominant religion.

Shamanism most certainly played this role in Korea. The impersonal tian of Confucianism was personalized as the Korean Hananim; special Korean sutras were composed with shamanistic flavor and ritual; and chants were done not just for meditation but for administering cures as well. Indeed, many Koreans accepted Buddhism, as many native peoples have embraced Christianity, as simply a superior form of shamanism. Like a good Confucian he emphasized the five family relationships, and his belief that Heaven will help only those who first cultivate themselves is strong Confucian humanism.

Ch'oe's view of nature and creation were a mixture of Confucian and D aoist speculation, and here he was willing to grant that he had been influenced by the D aoists. Shamanistic influences in Ch'ondogyo also abound.

Altars on mountain tops were built to pay homage to all the spirits of nature. Ch'oe used magic formulas and trances in his religious rituals and his 21 character incantation has all the markings of a shamanistic revelation. Although Ch'oe played down the impact of Christianity on his thought, evidence of its influence is clear. Chong contends that Ch'oe believed in faith healing and he notes interesting parallels between his and Paul's conversion accounts.

If we look at two Ch'ondogyo mottos, we see some initial parallels to Unification thought. The second motto is certainly one to which all Unificationists would subscribe, and I wonder if the Rev. Moon might not have been influenced by Ch'ondogyo on this point. Both religions are to be commended for stressing so heavily the virtues of human equality, benevolence, and justice for all. Theologically, the first motto reveals an Asian tendency, especially in Hinduism, Buddhism, and D aoism, to identify God and the world.

But there is no question that pantheism is stronger in Ch'ondogyo; so strong, in fact, that it might be accused of being a form of Titanism. But if we are to take this phrase literally and take it in conjunction with other statements , then it becomes a rather perverse form of radical humanism. I believe that Abrahamic religions are correct in holding that, although intimately related, God and his creatures constitute different orders of being.

Unificationist thought generally avoids Titanism by stressing the fallen and finite nature of all creation and ultimate power of God to make all things anew. Some instructive contrasts with Ch'ondogyo can be drawn by taking a closer look at the Unificationists' view of religious syncretism.

First, they are much more forthright about the sources of the Rev. Moon's thought. Second, while Ch'oe's mixing of the various traditions is confused or inaccurate, Unificationists have a clear, even scholarly, grasp of the various traditions that make up the Rev. Moon's theology. Third, rather than playing down the Christian elements, the Rev. Moon is of course primarily a confessing Christian who has attempted to adapt biblical revelation to a Oriental setting. For example, Unificationists believe that Christianity's personal God is far superior to Confucius' impersonal Providence, and they contend that Confucianism fails with regards to philosophy of history and eschatology.

When confronted with evidence of heavy Canaanite, Babylonian, and Zoroastrian influences in the Bible, many Euro-American Christians react defensively, fearing that to accept such claims would undermine the revelational purity and uniqueness of Christianity.

Genuine ecumenism will come only by recognizing the truth of religious syncretism. Moon is Confucianized. Many commentators contend that one of the greatest mistakes of Hellenistic Christianity was its acceptance of the substance metaphysics of Greek philosophy. This Greek influence forced the Church to declare that patripassianism — the view that God the Father actually suffered on the Cross — a heresy when in fact it was the only intelligible way to make the suffering of Jesus a truly redemptive event.

Unificationists believe that it is the suffering of God and humans together that genuinely redeems a fallen creation. It is here that the Orientalization of Christianity by the Rev. Moon and his emphasis on the Heart of God makes its most profound contribution. A combination of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah and the Buddhist Bodhisattva ideal has led to a new powerful interpretation of Christianity.

Unification thought also appeals to the evidence of modern physics, which has found that the classical atomistic, mechanistic cosmology is simply no longer tenable.

In fact, the universe is now better conceived as a gigantic field of pulsating energy, rather than empty space filled with colliding material atoms. Unification theology is very similar to the process theology developed from Whitehead's metaphysics. Drawing from modern physics and rejecting the idea of substance, Whitehead, like the Rev. Moon, conceives of the universe in organic, not mechanical, terms. Although the idea is present in Unification thought, process theology stresses much more the idea of the continuous cocreation of God and creatures and maintains that such a cooperative cosmic adventure can never be perfect.

The theological implications of a relational ontology are both fruitful and challenging. We have already seen the salutary effect it has on a doctrine of atonement. I doubt that Unificationists, with a more traditional view of divine omnipotence, would go this far. Another theological implication of relational ontology, again shared by both Unification and process theology, is the idea of incarnation as continuous.

The result of conceiving God so intimately involved in creation is a comprehensive idea of the divine presence in the world. The Incarnation did not happen in the unique and isolated way implied by western Christianity; rather, the kenosis of which Paul speaks Phillipians is continuous and universal. While neither Unification nor process theology can be called pantheistic, they can indeed be called panentheistic — not God identical with the world, but God fully in the world as well as transcendent to it.

As we shall see, such a view can incorporate the best elements of Shamanism without rejecting basic Christian beliefs. There is a natural link between Unification's relational ontology, taken primarily from D aoism and Buddhism, and its strong emphasis on the family, which clearly originates in Confucianism.

At the basis of the universal goal of perfected families is a fully relational view of human nature. Under the influence of Greek philosophy, theological anthropology in the West has taken a different position.

Following Boethius' definition of person as an individual rational substance, early Church fathers held that the image of God meant that the rational faculty was the essence of human nature. The Confucian term for basic human nature is r en and the contrast between its meaning and western psychology is striking and instructive. Second, in all the references to r en in the Confucian texts not one refers to the rational faculty as significant.

The ultimate moral rule of r en is the Golden Rule not original with Jesus in which we are exhorted to do unto other as they would do unto us. The Unification ist view of human nature is much more compatible with original Hebrew ideas than Hellenistic Christianity. See this link for a comparison of Hebrew and Buddhist concepts of self. The early Church fathers exhort us to become one with the Mind of God, but the Rev.

Moon, following both Confucian and Hebrew insights, tells us to know the Heart of God. Like the medieval voluntarists, who fought a losing battle against the moral rationalism of Thomas Aquinas, the Rev. Moon's Divine Principle holds that the mind follows the heart, not vice versa. Heart is the most vital part of his nature, such that all other attributes in him are what they are and do what they do solely because of this attribute God's Heart has within itself its own purpose; so it is through God's love, through his Heart, that The Principle Logos is expressed and the Creation comes into being and achieves fulfillment.

With a relational ontology and social view of human nature, the Rev. Moon's Confucian Christianity breaks with western Christianity most controversially on the issue of the redemptive work of Christ. Humanity is not saved by individual forgiveness through the sacrifice of Christ, but by the establishment of a perfect human community with a Messianic couple at its head. True to its Confucian roots, Divine Principle tells us that we are saved through filial piety not through blood sacrifice.

Therefore, the Rev. Moon sees the death of Jesus as a horrible defeat, not a victory over sin. The Crucifixion prevented Jesus from marrying and setting up the familial basis for the Kingdom of God. In Asia the masculine must always be completed by the feminine. Shamanism is the last element about which I wish to speak in relation to Unification theology. The Rev. Moon claims authority for his doctrine on the basis of a series of visions and visits to the spirit world; and, as in many shamanistic theogonies, he speaks of our divine parents.

There is, however, much value to draw from this parent religion of all religions. Any faith which believes in a spirit world and relies on the visions of prophets is essentially shamanistic at its core.

In addition, there are tenets of animism which we ought to resurrect, such as the idea of a sympathetic continuum in which all nature is alive and all things are sacred.

We need to remember that Adam and Eve once spoke to the animals and that reestablishing intimacy with nature must be an important item on our ecological agenda.

Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Google Scholar. Bauman, Z. Postmodern religion? Heelas Ed. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Bayly, S. Burger, H. Syncretism: An acculturative accelerator. Human Organization, 25 2 , — DeMarinis, V. Pastoral care, existential health and existential epidemiology: A Swedish postmodern case study.

Stockholm: Verbum Press. Droogers, A. Syncretism: The problem of definition, the definition of the problem. Gort, H. Vroom, R. Wessels Eds. Greenfield, S. Reinventing religions: Syncretism and transformation in Africa and the Americas. Hayden, R. Antagonistic tolerance: Competitive sharing of religious sites in South Asia and the Balkins. Current Anthropology, 43 , — Inglehart, R. Globalization and postmodern values.

The Washington Quarterly, 23 , — Marsella, A.