The New Syncretistic Dialogue

Broad new opportunities present themselves to theological writers within the pale of ecumenism. At the Uppsala assembly of the World Council of Churches a formal dialogue with other religions was initiated, followed by a first session near Beirut and discussions at Addis Ababa, when the WCC Central Committee met there. Further “profitable” discussions are anticipated. Vatican II also opened the doors: though it emphasized that there is no salvation apart from the Church and the Gospel that the Church proclaims, it also asserted that the Gospel is present and operative “in, through, and despite other religions.”

At the end of A History of Christianity in Japan (Eerdmans, 1971), Richard H. Drummond reports:

A second important phenomenon is related to the spirit and documents of the Second Vatican Council but is also to be noted among Protestant Christians. It consists of a new attitude which attempts to understand and appreciate non-Christian religious traditions not only as phenomena worthy of scientific study but also as potentially possessing religious truth and value. This means that Christian theology now considers the possibility that non-Christian religions may be instruments of the God and Father of Jesus Christ to reveal His will and save his people [p. 335].

The syncretistic tendency, the attempt to blend and reconcile various religions, is not new, but never before has it been so prominently espoused by a leading agency for many Christian churches. Promotion of this point of view has come from philosophers, sociologists, anthropologists, comparative religionists, and some avant-garde theologians. Arnold Toynbee and many other writers have long declared that Christianity is the most intransigent among the religions because its God will allow no other and its promise of salvation is through its Anointed alone, whose Church alone will prevail in all the vicissitudes and who alone will judge all mankind.

In ancient times Gnosticism, Manicheism, and Islam were efforts to unify mankind through religion for a variety of purposes. Similarly, modern writers like Robert D. Young (Encounter With World Religions, 1970) seem to believe that peace and harmony are created in an ideal world by the melting together of various religions. Young offers the pre-Christian logos concept as a basis for religious synthesis.

Robert Young and Lowell D. Streiker (The Gospel of Irreligious Religion, Sheed and Ward, 1969) advocate “openness” in theology: beliefs should not be specifically stated, and structures should give way to the unstructured style of Asian religions. “Conversion” and “evangelistic mission” are frowned upon, yet in some fashion a mission of religion is envisioned. The accent is on elimination of the evils of human bondage to poverty, ignorance, and disease. Is it then a secular millennium that is envisioned in this “open theology”? Shall we accept a further paganizing of America as a step in the progress toward a humanistic utopia? We see here only a misguided propaganda. The opportunity to propagandize is unlimited today, and the “desperately wicked” heart of man responds readily to any attack on established truth and authority.

Many writers restrict themselves to the dialogue with a particular religion. William Johnston writes “Reflections on Zen and Christian Mysticism,” the subtitle of The Still Point (Fordham University Press, 1970):

First of all, I should say that the Oriental technique can deepen the prayer life of those who are already contemplative.… It could be safely argued, then, that anyone who had spent a number of years in ordinary prayer might profitably attempt some kind of vertical meditation.… Too many potential contemplatives smother the tiny flame of love with endless thinking, when they should be silent, empty, and expectant.

Johnson continues with a discussion of satori, the Zen enlightenment:

And obviously it is this (if it exists) that the Christian should aim at. Yet … that satori cannot come to the Christian because he necessarily clings to ideas, dogmas, and beliefs.… In short, Christianity demands fidelity to ideas of God, of the Bible, of dogma—all which are an obstacle to enlightenment in utter nakedness [p. 179].

It has been said for some time that “liberalism” is dead, a statement tending to disarm the unwary. But if it was ever dead, it has risen again to rear its head under a new helmet. Tillich found the “universal spirit” in many religions, but it seems that even he was not ready for the God-is-dead movement launched by some whom he had influenced, a movement basic to “profitable” dialogue with other religions. Add the “secularization” of the Church, the “revision” of Christian morality, and the new interpretation of “salvation” as in the WCC slogan “Salvation Today,” and we see in preparation an ecumenism like that in the Roman empire, when Emperor Alexander Severus is said to have had in his private chapel statues not only of the deified emperors but also of the miracle worker Appolonius of Tyana, Christ, Abraham, and Orpheus. The word “oikoumene” has returned full circle to its pagan origins.

Contact between peoples in this shrunken world of ours brings an inevitable dialogue between religions. Many people need to understand other religions in the pursuit of their professions. Dialogue can be profitable in many ways relating to the external life, and also in the examples it reveals of the dedication of some devotees to their religions. J. N. D. Anderson has treated this matter in his Christianity and Comparative Religion (Inter-Varsity, 1970). But he goes on to caution, “Neither the Christian church nor the individual Christian can participate in anything which savours of syncretism.” Anderson’s book is a worthy sequel to Hendrik Kraemer’s The Christian Message in a Non-Christian World, W. A. Visser ’t Hooft’s No Other Name, and D. T. Niles’s The Message and Its Messengers, all of which are recommended for rereading in the present discussion. These men, all thoroughly familiar with the inner workings of the WCC, show ample evidence that the Church should not neglect the obligation of apologetic writing, though it be a new apologetics.

To think of the Christian missionary as unwilling to confer with other religious leaders on matters of theology would be a misrepresentation: the history of missions offers many examples of this, such as the work of Ziegenbalg and Schwartz in India. Human goals should be sought in common, and they need not involve the destruction of another man’s culture and religion.

In many parts of the world a tolerant pluralism is not easily achieved. Yet a growing enlightenment in many countries may promise a greater toleration, if in the interest of national progress the governments allow the freedom of worship that the principles of pluralistic democracy imply. Evangelical leaders have the opportunity to make their views known to national leaders, who may show greater confidence in honest churchmanship than in the syncretism of a moribund ecumenism.

The words of Stephen Neill in Call to Mission (Fortress, 1970) remind the Church of its abiding task: “The missionary must have no doubt as to the purpose for which he has come overseas. He must be a missionary. That means that, waking or sleeping, he must be dominated by one central concern—that men and women should be brought to know Jesus Christ and to find life in him.”

Otto F. Stahlke is professor of world religions and Old Testament at Concordia Seminary, Springfield, Illinois. He holds the M.A. degree from Wayne State University and the S.T.M. from Concordia Seminary, St. Louis.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.