CHAPTER 10 Syncretism or Inclusivist Subordination? An Exploration into the Dynamics of Inter-Religious Cooperation

Elizabeth J. Harris

The chapters of this book demonstrate that the term ‘syncretism’ is located within a multi-disciplinary field that embraces social anthropology, the his- tory of , philosophy, sociology and . For the purposes of this paper, however, I will move between two broad areas: social anthropology and theology. I will argue that insights from theology, in particular the theology of religions, can shed light on the phenomena that both social anthropologists and theologians might label syncretic. Methodologically, theological and anthropological approaches to syncre- tism have differed enormously. Risking generalisation, the social anthropolo- gist, whilst recognising that research can never be completely neutral because of the impact of the researcher on the collection and analysis of data, would nevertheless insist that the task of anthropology is to understand and interpret human communities in a way that is as value-free as possible. The theologian, on the other hand, is accustomed to a more value-laden approach that em- ploys the tools of critical analysis to establish boundaries between the true and the false, the orthodox and the heterodox. With reference to syncretism, therefore, social anthropologists are more likely to work with the premise that and religious communities con- tinuously re-constitute and re-imagine themselves through interaction with and borrowing from other cultures and religions. They recognise that diverse empirical phenomena result: from the translation of symbols and concepts be- tween religions and cultures to create new identities, to defence of the known in the face of perceived threat from a more powerful Other. In other words, both syncretism and resistance to syncretism are to be expected in a globalised world, where power relations condition inter-cultural and inter-religious encounter. Theologians, on the other hand, have approached syncretism with caution and judgement because of its perceived potential to threaten the integrity or of a particular system. In the conviction that each has an authentic, unchanging core based on revelation, they have, in general terms, defined the syncretic as a dilution, an obscuring or a confusing of truth

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi ��.��63/9789004336599_012 210 Harris through the irrational fusion of incompatible religious elements. In the words of Michael Pye, syncretism has been seen as ‘an illicit contamination, a threat or a danger, as taboo, or as a sign of religious decadence’.1 W. A. Visser’t Hooft can be cited as a twentieth-century example of a theolo- gian who stridently critiqued syncretism, defining the term as:

the view which holds that there is no unique revelation in history, that there are many different ways to reach the divine reality, that all formula- tions of religious truth or experience are by their very nature inadequate expressions of that truth and that it is necessary to harmonize as much as possible all religious ideas and experiences so as to create one universal religion for mankind.2

Syncretism was true syncretism, for Visser’t Hooft, only if the different religious elements that were combined or drawn into a universalist schema were seen as equally true. He proceeded to argue that should utterly reject such a representation of truth. Taking examples from text and tradition, he claimed that there had been four waves of syncretism within Christendom: ‘’ in the Old Testament, which he described as a ‘syncretic crisis’ for the early ;3 universalist forms of such as in the early centuries of the Christian era; the stance of Rousseau and Goethe in the eighteenth centu- ry; studies of leading to a questioning of the uniqueness of Christianity. He then turned to ‘Eastern syncretism’ in the thought of people such as Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and his pupil, Vivekānanda and to what he saw as a syncretistic , the Baha’i faith. He was able to agree with the an- thropologist that humans were naturally syncretistic but his response was not to condone but to judge. Religion should not simply be seen as ‘an element of ’.4 True religion, Christianity for Visser’t Hooft, was based on a unique and universal event: the reconciling of the world to through . This was the only that Christians should countenance.5

1 Michael Pye, ‘Syncretism and Ambiguity’, in Syncretism in Religion: A Reader, eds. Anita M. Leopold and Jeppe S. Jenson (London: Equinox, 2004), 59–67, quoted in Perry Schmidt-Leukel, Transformation by Integration: How Inter-faith Encounter Changes Christianity (London: SCM, 2009), 69. 2 W.A. Visser’t Hooft, No Other Name: The choice between syncretism and Christian Universalism (London: SCM, 1963), 11. 3 Ibid., 13. 4 Ibid., 85. 5 Ibid., 95.