Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo
Director, Research Center for Religion in Society and Culture

Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo

Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo is Professor Emeritus of Puerto Rican and Latino Studies at Brooklyn College and Distinguished Scholar of the City University of New York.

 ALL POSTS

Rosary Beads and Syncretism

A question about incorporating practices of other religions is a question about syncretism. Most believers in the Abrahamic faiths don’t like the word “syncretism.” It implies imitation of something alien to your religion, which means that your faith was “inferior” before the syncretism began.

It could also mean that your original belief is rendered “impure” by adding some other religious experience. But although I understand why the word is controversial, the fact of syncretism for the Abrahamic faiths is undeniable. In fact, the ability to be accommodate other religious experiences is one of the strengths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

In one sense, there is little doubt that syncretism plays a major role in the development of each of these faiths. That statement can be made even without describing the obvious dependency of many Christian and Islamic beliefs on the historic religion of Israel.

How could there be a Christian Last Supper or a Eucharist if there had not been a Jewish Passover meal? How could there be an Islamic prohibition against eating pork, if there were no Kosher rules already in the Hebrew Bible? Moreover, Christianity has adopted customs for its feast days taken from Celtic and Germanic religion, just as Arabic and Persian elements help distinguish rituals and beliefs of today’s Sunni and Shiite Muslims.

But Abrahamic syncretism began with Abraham. Would male circumcision have acquired religious meaning for the descendants of Abraham had it not already been practiced for centuries among the Egyptians? How could there be a Hebrew Noah without a Sumerian Gilgamesh? Would there ever had been an anointed King of Israel (a messiah, if you will), had not surrounding nations celebrated the religious powers of their kings?

Each of these issues provide clear historical and archaeological evidence of the influence of pagan religions of the time on belief among the Hebrews. The only arguments against these facts concern interpretation: Did such admixtures constitute “imitation” by Jews of other religions? Does such borrowing from paganism mean that the Hebrew religion was “inferior” at that time? When the answers of interpretation are provided by theologians, expect words like “revelation” and “God’s Word” to appear.

In addressing the less complex question posed this week, a few definitions are in order. (I have no intention of forcing people to accept my views, but I think it serves clarity to be as precise as possible about terms so as to avoid causing greater confusion.)

The theologian, Dr. Jaime Vidal, made a distinction useful for this issue in dialogue with Dr. Gustavo Benavides in An Enduring Flame, a volume I helped edit some years ago. Vidal coined the word “synthesization” to distinguish the absorption of non-substantial practices and beliefs by the Abrahamic religions from “syncretization” which is engaged with doctrinal issues.

Key to Vidal’s understanding – and Benavides’ critique – is an analogy with how grammar rules affect meaning. In offering an example of synthesization, Vidal cites the Spanish Catholic harvest festivals for wheat that were given religious significance in saints’ days, and like references to the Eucharist.

The harvest festivals for the Aztecs of Mexico celebrated their crop of corn, but had religious references to their controlling deity, Centeotl. So, reasons Vidal, both faiths understood the “grammar” of a festival: “God brings the harvest.” If the Mexicans placed the same content upon the term “God” as did the Christians, their belief would coincide with Catholic doctrine. Just as “corn” could replace “wheat” without distorting the meaning of “harvest,” the Christian God could replace the Aztec God.

In such a case, the faiths would have been “synthesized.” For Dr. Benavides, on the other hand, the Aztecs might say “Dios” but most would mean “Centeotl.” Refusing to equate military dominance by the Spaniards with religious ascendancy, Benevides predicted that the Aztec understanding was likely found among the common people. For him, "syncretization" is the better term because the native belief endured underneath the guise of similar Christian rituals. And let me add that along with both scholars, I would refuse to say that the Aztecs were “confused” or “ignorant” for holding to their original faith by resort to syncretism.

This is not the place to fight such battles. The distinction is useful, however, in reviewing whether incorporation of yoga positions for prayer, to give one example, constitutes replacement of the Abrahamic faith with an “impure” element, or an enrichment with useful technique. The celebrated monk and author, Thomas Merton, passed away while in dialogue with Buddhist monks about much the same subject.

In other words, it seems to me, that a case could be made that synthesization is completely orthodox adaptation that does not detract from the vitality of faith in any of the Abrahamic traditions. And I’ll say a rosary on my beads (another borrowing from the East) for anyone who doubts the ability to be completely orthodox while incorporating what is valuable in other religions.

By Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo  |  April 11, 2007; 7:56 AM ET Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: WWJD: What Would Jefferson Do? | Next: Bible More Than Sufficient

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.



Good site! I'll stay reading! Keep improving!

Posted by: Nika | November 10, 2007 8:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Good site! I'll stay reading! Keep improving!

Posted by: Nika | November 10, 2007 8:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment

ALM, the biggest difference is that the Eucharist is Jesus, not just a symbol or "spiritual" aspect of the devinity.

Posted by: Bill L | April 17, 2007 9:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Alm - bread and wine is part of the passover meal and part of regular synogogue service. They pass it out on trays with little paper cups of wine and pieces of bread. They just call it bread and wine, not body and blood. That made it palatable for me.

Some of the early pre-christian cults were heavy in blood -- drinking animal blood, or having it drip on them.

Posted by: E favorite | April 13, 2007 10:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment

As a denizen of Spanish-American Catholicism I thought at first that Stevens-Arroyo sounded so right because of my cultural bias. I'm starting to see that he just plain knows what he is talking about. Like the Jesuits versus the Franciscans as New World missionaries-- the Franciscans may have won out politically (way back when) but it seems to be the Jesuit method that has triumphed.

Posted by: Viejita del oeste | April 12, 2007 12:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The Eucharist(or Holy Communion)is described by St. Paul in his letter to the Corinthians, which was written decades before the Gospel of Mark (the first Gospel to be written) and thus you are right,Ralph, that this practice dates from the beginnings of Christianity.

The closest parallel in Eastern religious practice is prasad, which is food that incorporates the Spiritual energy (Shakti in Hindi parlance) of Divinity.

Posted by: ALM | April 12, 2007 11:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Professor Marcus Borg, an On-Faith panelist, has published a book comparing many of the sayings of Jesus to those of Buddha. Jesus and Buddha: The Parallel Sayings (2002),

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Buddha-Parallel-Marcus-Borg/dp/1569753180/ref=sr_1_1/104-9896956-2574367?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176392091&sr=1-1 .

An excerpt from the Introduction of the book:

"Most striking of all the parallels between Jesus and Buddha are those dealing with love..."

Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | April 12, 2007 11:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Viejete,

And of course Cal Thomas and Chuck Colson weighed in precisely as expected. And as expected, I will now foam at the mouth about Professor Stevens-Arroyo.

Mildly this time.

All of Christianity is syncretic, from the stories about the virgin birth, the miracles, the death on the hill, to the claims of resurrection on the third day. Even the day Christians celebrate the birth of their Son of God, all of it is a mixture of Hellenistic and middle eastern hero stories. One thing that seems to make Chrisitianity dynamic and appealing to so many people (and interesting to atheists like me) is that Christians have never stopped absorbing whatever is in the local milieu.

The hardcore elements, people like Chuck Colson, will choke the life out of it with their mindless rigidity. At the very least they become caricatures of themselves.

Posted by: Ba'al | April 12, 2007 9:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Very early Christianity existed as one of several hundred niche religions within the Roman Empire, and borrowed a lot especially from the cult of Mithra. Cult in that context just means another splinter faith, not a secretive and violent organization.

Once Christianity became the official religion of the Empire, they placed crosses atop all the buildings and artwork of other faiths, and placed Christian religious holidays on the same days as Pagan holidays. From these actions we can know that Christianity does not permit simultaneous membership in other religions, but that the faith does change through time.

One thing that is unique and consistent within Christianity is the religious rite of holy communion. It is first mentioned in the Gospels which appeared in the decades after Jesus's crucifixion, and has remained the most distinctive aspect of the religion since.

Things like yoga and meditation can be seen as different types of prayer practices that include different types of philosophies about the human spirit. However, since they do not touch the third rail of Christian doctrine, they meander in and out of popularity.

Posted by: Ralph | April 12, 2007 6:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Ba'al
The voices you seek have already weighed in at Thistlethwaite's thread. You know them, Pablo who insists that any variation from his own narrowly defined Christian path is the road to Hell, and "Jesus is the Only Way" who pastes in the same list of Bible quotations for every question.

Posted by: Viejita del oeste | April 12, 2007 1:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Yoga is good for your health, it builds strength and flexibility. I am curious to see if there are Christians who say you will go to hell for doing it.

Posted by: Ba'al | April 11, 2007 10:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment

To Henry James & Steve B,

Merry We Meet! I've enjoyed reading your posts, and I hope to see more.

Maybe Pablo will show up. He is a True Believer. He would insist that I was worshipping the Creation over the Creator, and I would insist you couldn't separate the two! We never did reach an agreement.

Posted by: wiccan | April 11, 2007 8:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Thanks Henry.

I'm in favour of any way that people can find to more closely experience the Divine, as long as it doesn't turn them into asshats. In my case (and Henry's, by the sound of it) I get something from seeing nature as sacred and beautiful. (And deity as both male and female, but that's a whole different post).

Some other faiths see this world as flawed or irrelevant compared to a promised afterlife, and that's fine too, but it's clear from the history mentioned in the main post and from the increasing numbers in neopaganism today that people often need different paths.

So when I see forums like this open to the idea that you can get a sense of sacredness and joy from communing with nature (or meditating, or yoga), and that *this isn't inherently evil just because it wasn't originally sanctioned by Rome*, I think it's brilliant. I can point you to tens of other sites that don't go that far in the name of 'interfaith' dialogue.

Sure, there's a point at which bringing Buddhism into your daily practice would stop it being Christianity, but that's mostly about who's at the top of the cosmology, not whether you kneel or sit cross-legged when you shut your eyes in quiet contemplation. It may not be traditional, but the question is does that make it automatically "wrong" for the big 3 monotheisms to use?

(The answer might be yes. I'm interested to see what people say.)

Posted by: Steve B, UK | April 11, 2007 5:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Steve B, UK

As an adoptive son of the UK myself, I resonate with your insights, and with your paganism.

The Christian religions have succeeded in alienating themselves from nature and from other wisdom traditions in the world to an alarming degree.

I have become a worshipper of the Moon lately, so I suppose that makes me a Druid.

I find the communion with nature and animals helps me commune with the moral and spiritual being of my fellows more deeply.

I suspect that Christianity's concentration on the next world inhibits its understanding and compassion for this one in many cases. It teaches us to abjure our natures rather than to engage with them in all their complication.

Buddhism, as our friend Norrie points out, is the most highly developed spiritual practice we have in this regard, and i think is most compatible with most strains of Paganism.

May the Goddess Bless You,
Henry

Posted by: Henry James | April 11, 2007 4:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Robert B:
Yes, I'm aware of the Church's deliberate policy of the time, as well as the pagan and other native roots of some buildings - and indeed festivals!

I'm pagan myself (in the UK) and am often stunned at how vehemently some christians stick to details of their faith or practice while denouncing 'the pagans', without knowing that the aspect they're talking about wasn't even incorporated until the Church borrowed it from the locals.

Which is fine. Some of the posts on this topic have been superb:
"God is not the exclusive preserve of these three monotheistic faiths."
"Religions do not exist to define different kingdoms but to enrich each other."
"No single faith has a monopoly on the truth".

Congratulations guys, you managed to have a multi-faith forum which is actually interesting and relevant to people who don't necessarily accept "The Bible is the only truth". It's very uplifting to see.

Posted by: Steve B, UK | April 11, 2007 3:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Dr. Arroyo,

I find your commentary most helpful in understanding my own position, having been called from my former Eastern path by the Holy Spirit. I do not discredit my former path, and still maintain a regular practice of meditation, using a mantra which incorporates the Name of Jesus Christ, which I received while in meditation.

Posted by: ALM | April 11, 2007 12:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment

To Steve --

Check out the letter of Pope Gregory the Great to Mellitus in 601 (?). The Church actually adopted a kind of syncretism as an official policy in missionary work, especially as regards temples. Dig down deep enough under any European cathedral and you'll find the remains of a pagan temple. :)

Posted by: Robert B. | April 11, 2007 12:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Mr. Stevens-Arroyo,

Thank you for another well researched and articulate post. I always enjoy reading your column, whether I agree or disagree.

I hope the WP is paying you for your efforts :)

Posted by: ghostbuster | April 11, 2007 12:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Let me echo Steve, thank you for such an informed response. My first thought when reading this question was the massive "adoption" of festivals and symbols by Christianity when moving into a new area. Christians often have Christmas trees, which are a "pagan" adoption. The halo around Christ in many religious pictures is certainly reminiscent of Ra -- the Egyptian sun god -- symbolism. These are only a couple that pop to mind since I am not doing the impressive detail you did in your response!

Posted by: Cyndy | April 11, 2007 11:38 AM
Report Offensive Comment

This is probably the only time I have agreed with Mr. Arroyo. Scary. But I agree. Good Post.

Posted by: Russell D. | April 11, 2007 10:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I'm very impressed by this response. Thank you for such a knowledgeable and reasonable post - I was beginning to think they were in short supply on here (too much Chuck Colson, obviously).

I think your first two paragraphs absolutely capture the whole issue. I'm often amused by how the historical influences on the church from European and Eastern sources are ignored by some today.

Posted by: Steve B, UK | April 11, 2007 10:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Back in the 1950's, before yoga was well-known or widely practiced in the United States, I came across a book entitled "Christian Yoga" written by Jean-Marie Dechanet, a Roman Catholic priest.

Using the book I taught myself yoga, and derived great benefit from its yoga postures, and from the Christian prayers which Fr. Dechanet had integrated with the exercises and which I recited while doing the exercises. [The book is still available - just google it.]

This seems to me to be a fine example of synthesization, of benefit to Christians who learned Father Dechanet's yoga postures and prayers and integrated them.

I was "flirting" with Christianity at the time, and found considerable attractions in Her, but later abandoned Her for others. My fault, not Hers.

Posted by: Norrie Hoyt | April 10, 2007 9:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company