Syncretism as a Theological Problem for Missions

Syncretism as a Theological Problem for Missions

by Hendrik Kraemer

179Driebergen, Netherlands

Dear Mr. Anderson:

When you asked me to be a collaborator in your volume The Theology of the Christian Mission, and assigned me the subject: “Syncretism as a Theological Problem for Missions,” I showed considerable reluctance to accept. I attributed this reluctance to weariness, for I already have written considerably on syncretism as a missionary Your kind insistence to collaborate, nevertheless, caused me to accept.

Now, however, as I come to write the requested contribution I discover other roots in this reluctance. The conviction has grown in me that writing theoretical essays time and again on syncretism as a theological problem for missions has no use whatever. Such repeated essays are read, registered as the author’s particular opinion, and then put on a shelf of one’s library. In other words, it does not change missionary thinking or missionary strategy, but remains simply a museum piece.

This is connected with a strong tendency to treat “theological 180problems” essentially as theoretical affairs. With this tendency I heartily disagree. To me a “theological problem,” if really of fundamental significance, is an eminently practical affair demanding new decisions and followed by new action.

When I had the privilege of being Director of the Ecumenical Institute, I frequently tried to hammer into the minds of conference participants a maxim which I consider an important truth. The maxim is that a sound theoretical idea (or a sound theological conception) is not simply a matter of intellectual delight and enjoyment but rather the most practical thing in the world. This indissoluble oneness of clear thought with vigorous action belongs to the essence of true theology, especially in relation to the Church’s missionary calling. I am deeply convinced that the phenomenon of syncretism is a theological problem of fundamental importance to missions, both for sound missiological thinking and for missionary strategy. Therefore you are fully justified, from the point of view of missiology as an important branch of theology, in wanting to have a chapter on it in your symposium. But I fear that bracketed as such, that is as “a theological problem,” it is a repetitious affair without much effect.

In my previous writings I have tried to put the above-mentioned maxim into practice. Having outlined the reasons why syncretism in recent decades has come so much to the fore in missionary thinking, I took care to point to the role played by the science of religion in sharpening our eyes to the significance of syncretism in religious and cultural life. The science of religion has aided us in seeing it as a universal phenomenon. Therefore I have emphasized that missionary people should not merely treat syncretism as a theological bogey but should acknowledge the fact that all historical religions in their concrete manifestations are syncretistic in different respects. This includes the three great religions which are basically antisyncretistic, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. On the other hand I have emphasized equally that the great Oriental religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Chinese) are basically syncretistic and therefore classical examples. Their basic syncretism penetrates their thinking, attitudes, and reactions in religious respect and blurs or relativizes the question of Truth. Because this basic fact operates without interruption and forms the atmosphere in which the younger churches have to exist and grow, it constitutes a perennial threat to the distinct character of the truth of the Christian message.

181Syncretism as a theological problem concerns not only missions but all serious theological thinking in this time of increasing contact among the great religions. In fact, it is one of the most universal theological problems in which is implied the understanding of Truth (in the religious and philosophical sense), its authenticity and the source of its authority. As a theological and (I would add) philosophical problem, syncretism is, or at any rate should be, one of the truly great problems in the East-West dialogue. But it is not merely theoretical. It is eminently practical because it decides the whole attitude of life and its directive ultimates. For that reason I have tried to indicate methods of pastoral care, of religious instruction, and of theological training so that younger churches can develop and maintain a clear consciousness of the Christian Truth in the midst of an insidious syncretistic atmosphere that is constantly creeping in.

At the same time I appealed to Western and Eastern leaders of the missionary enterprise to develop a systematic effort for placing small bands of thoroughly trained experts in the service of the Church, They would serve in the great non-Christian religio-cultural areas and be experts in the respective religions and cultures of those areas. In describing these bands I used the term “watchtowers of thought,” borrowing the expression from Professor William Ernest Hocking. When I first used this term, I said:

To find them and systematically use them we must not only look to the ranks of the Christians in the Younger Churches or of the missionaries, but also to the Christian thinkers and scholars all over the world. A more deliberately thought-out marshalling and using of its forces in this respect on an ecumenical scale is an important concern for the world Christian community today.”

In the same writing I phrased the idea again in the following words: “Every important region needs some men who on account of their ability and knowledge regularly sow the seed of new principles and methods. This proposal is seriously recommended to the responsible

I call to mind these examples from my previous writings to iljustrate that, in my opinion, theology in itself (and that is what the isolated treatment of syncretism as a theological problem for mis182sions often amounts to) is not theology in full but an amputated specimen of theology. Full theology includes expression in action and new forms of life, for the Christian truth, notwithstanding all its exclusiveness, is also all-inclusive.

D. T. Niles has said that all the talk about syncretism has led in India to an inclination toward ghettoism of the churches. If that is right, he justly protests against this. It proves that the discussion of syncretism as a theological problem for missions easily tends toward amputated theology as I have defined it, and consequently toward ghettoism, which is the exact opposite of what sound theological reflection on the life issue of syncretism should lead to, viz., missionary outreach and spiritual upbuilding. Therefore it is regrettable that D. T. Niles, in his rightful wrath about ghettoism, seems to ignore the necessity and inevitability of clear-sighted, Christian confrontation (Auseinandersetzung) with the creeping danger of syncretism. It is a subtle temptation that will continuously try to eat away the heart of the Christian Truth.

The “responsible agencies” to which I appealed in 1938 for these practical measures to combat syncretism have not responded even to this day. Missions continue without being appalled by the severe lack of sufficient forces to attend to fundamental issues, issues which require competence and not merely good will or zeal. We are investing in missions an enormous amount of money, energy, devotion, sacrifice, untiring zeal. This should be gladly and gratefully recognized. Yet if we look at the present world situation, in which our missions must deal with religions and cultures that are increasingly aware and jealous of their self-identity and spiritual achievement; and if we look at the dynamic world that, by its presuppositions and outlooks, is shaking Christianity to its very foundations, then we must realistically state that, by and large, missions are conceived and performed (without knowing or intending it) in an amateurish way. One more article on syncretism as a theological problem for missions will not cause the least change, because theology and spiritual strategy are usually kept neatly separate. For this reason I cannot overcome my aversion to write “one article more.” I simply do not believe in its usefulness. What I do hope and pray for is the awakening of the “responsible agencies” to the fundamental necessities.—_

Tip: use the ← and → keys to move between chapters; press Ctrl K to search. Share any printed page with index.html?p=<page>.

↑ Back to top ⬇ Download the scanned PDF