March 5,
2019
Brian G.
Felushko
After reflecting on a reading assigned
in an "Introduction to Theology Course" (for which I am a Teaching Assistant), I'm finally ready to come clean about something I've become more and more certain of over the last 15 years, and this is it: Believing in or seeking the restoration of "pure New Testament
Christianity" is an exercise in futility involving a measure of self-deception. Why? It is because our practice of Christianity, as individual Christians and as local churches, is never free from cultural impact or influence. That was true in the first generation of Jesus followers just as surely it is true of our current generation.
To quote Richard Twiss in his book, Rescuing the Gospel from the Cowboys: A Native American Expression of the Jesus Way, "As cultural beings, we have nothing but syncretism in the church, and rightly so, since the gospel always gets inside culture...We mix music, ceremony, language, art, symbols, vocabulary, fashion, ideologies, nationalism and cultural metaphors constantly."
Syncretism is "the attempted reconciliation or union of different or opposing principles, practices, or parties, as in philosophy or religion." What Twiss is claiming is that culture always influences what we believe and practice. We do not live out our faith in a glass bubble. We do not have a spiritual force field surrounding us that is protecting us from the influences of the world. Our practice of Christianity is individually, and collectively, the product of our culture in intersection with our faith.
To quote Richard Twiss in his book, Rescuing the Gospel from the Cowboys: A Native American Expression of the Jesus Way, "As cultural beings, we have nothing but syncretism in the church, and rightly so, since the gospel always gets inside culture...We mix music, ceremony, language, art, symbols, vocabulary, fashion, ideologies, nationalism and cultural metaphors constantly."
Syncretism is "the attempted reconciliation or union of different or opposing principles, practices, or parties, as in philosophy or religion." What Twiss is claiming is that culture always influences what we believe and practice. We do not live out our faith in a glass bubble. We do not have a spiritual force field surrounding us that is protecting us from the influences of the world. Our practice of Christianity is individually, and collectively, the product of our culture in intersection with our faith.
Thus, there are things we believe and practice
as Christians today that are not so much representative of so-called “New
Testament Christianity” as they are examples of “twenty-first century Westernized
Christianity.” I am convinced that if we could transport a first century Jesus
follower through time and space into the midst of one of our twenty-first century “worship services,” equipped with a universal translator—yes, I’m a Star
Trek fan—that Christian would not recognize or relate to most of what is said
or done in our assemblies. That’s because the earliest Christians lived out
their faith in a first-century Jewish and/or Greco-Roman culture and we live
out our faith in a twenty-first century North American culture; a culture that has also
had time to be steeped in twenty centuries of various cultural influences and impact.
The faith we see lived out in the New Testament by the earliest Jesus followers
was conceived and birthed in, and thus influenced and impacted by, their
first-century Jewish and/or Greco-Roman culture. So, what I’m saying is this:
it is wrong-headed of us to think we should or could ever restore “New
Testament” Christianity.
I agree with Twiss when he writes, “I am
proposing, based on biblical research by reputable scholars, that a
transitional process of syncretism is a normal part of our spiritual growth—yes,
normal.”[2]
Thus, what I must strive to do is to
hold the central teachings of the gospel of Christ in tension with the cultural
influences, such that I lose nothing of my faith in Jesus in the process. Twiss
acknowledges that there is "a legitimate concern [that] exists about a kind of
mixing” that he calls “counteractive syncretism." He defines this as, “the idea
of a kind of mixing of core religious beliefs that ultimately diminish, fully
resist, or finally stop—counteract—one’s personal faith journey as a follower
of Jesus and his ways.”[3]
He then asks a vitally important question: “Does blending or mixing cultural ways/beliefs complement or mutually and positively inform varying faith perspectives, or does it result in the rejection of the centrality of the biblical, historical Jesus Christ as Creator—the incarnation of Creator among us?”[4] Figuring this out—i.e., how to mix our culture with our faith—is not an instantaneous or certain process. I love the saying he quotes, “It’s one thing if a bird lands on your head. It’s another thing if you let it build a nest.”[5] Does believing in Jesus as God’s son—who died on a Roman cross, was buried in a borrowed grave, but raised to life again— “require that one reject all other cultural ways of being, thinking, expressing and living out our faith in Jesus”? If you think that it does, I’d say, “Good luck with that!” Not all syncretism is good, but not all syncretism is bad. And it takes time, energy, honesty and often outside perspectives to see what and how we are syncretizing, both as individuals of faith and as faith communities, in order to understand which aspects of our cultural beliefs and practices need to be resisted or can be embraced.
He then asks a vitally important question: “Does blending or mixing cultural ways/beliefs complement or mutually and positively inform varying faith perspectives, or does it result in the rejection of the centrality of the biblical, historical Jesus Christ as Creator—the incarnation of Creator among us?”[4] Figuring this out—i.e., how to mix our culture with our faith—is not an instantaneous or certain process. I love the saying he quotes, “It’s one thing if a bird lands on your head. It’s another thing if you let it build a nest.”[5] Does believing in Jesus as God’s son—who died on a Roman cross, was buried in a borrowed grave, but raised to life again— “require that one reject all other cultural ways of being, thinking, expressing and living out our faith in Jesus”? If you think that it does, I’d say, “Good luck with that!” Not all syncretism is good, but not all syncretism is bad. And it takes time, energy, honesty and often outside perspectives to see what and how we are syncretizing, both as individuals of faith and as faith communities, in order to understand which aspects of our cultural beliefs and practices need to be resisted or can be embraced.
Truly, this requires consistent and
persistent evaluation. It is often messy. Baptism did not cleanse us of all our cultural beliefs
and practices. We died to our old selves in baptism, but that does not mean we
are free of, or even recognize, the cultural lens through which we understand
our faith. As Twiss states,
True
conversion—becoming transformed and, over a lifetime conformed, to the person
of Jesus—is a gradual and erratic process of sociocultural change or
acculturation. It is not regulated or predictable, nor is it an evenly paced
process of change and transformation, but quite the opposite. It is uneven,
variable, messy, irregular and fluctuating. It is an organic process of
spiritual transformation as we engage the sacred ways of our Creator, bound by
the limitations of our existence as finite human beings (emphasis is mine).[6]
I want to suggest that openly displaying the
American flag alongside the "Christian flag" on each side of the
stage or pulpit is an example of counteractive syncretism. It is blending the
ideology of nationhood and the Christian religion. It presupposes an idealized
national exceptionalism of God's chosenness, blessing and approval of America.
The result is a unique Americanized version of Christianity that directs
attention away from identity in Christ and his kingdom. It redirects allegiance
to a kind of "Christian patriotism" that demands a deep-seated
loyalty, reverence, trust and faith in political, military and economic might.
It inspires national pride and the assumptions of Creator's divine favor. Why
don't Canadian churches place Canadian flags in their churches?[7]
However,
as “Canadian” Christians, I believe most of us are ignorant of, blind to, or
refuse to see the features of our “Christian faith [which has been] formed
within and by American culture.” What are some of the most obvious features of
the Americanization of Christianity that have impacted us, even in Canada? Andrew
Walls writes,
Among the features that mark it out from other
such Christian expressions are vigorous expansionism; readiness of
invention; a willingness to make the fullest use of contemporary technology;
finance, organization, and business methods; a mental separation of the
spiritual and the political realms combined with the conviction of the
superlative excellence, if not a universal relevance, of the historic
constitution and values of the nation; and an approach to theology,
evangelism, and church life in terms of addressing problems and finding solutions
(emphasis is mine).[8]
Are all
these cultural influences opposed to the gospel of Christ? Not all, but some, for
sure, are. Christianity as most of us practice it is highly institutionalized. It
is no longer organic. It is mass produced on denominational assembly lines. The
end result of these productions, as they come off the assembly line, are immediately
and consistently scrutinized in binary terms as either true/false, right/wrong,
good/bad, orthodox/heretical. In contrast, my reading of Jesus’ life and
teaching, and that of the authors of the New Testament texts, demonstrates that
living out our faith is “an organic process of spiritual transformation”
that occurs over one’s lifetime and “is gradual and erratic…not regulated or
predictable, nor…evenly paced…It is uneven, variable, messy, irregular and
fluctuating” (emphasis is mine).[9]
But instead, what we normally experience in conservative evangelical and
fundamentalist Christianity are expectations of instant and irrevocable “repentance”
that when found wanting in the individual or in a faith community is labelled as
the adulteration of biblical truth, another gospel or unbiblical teaching and/or
practice.
So, what
can we do? I think that it’s not just Indigenous Christianity that needs to rescue their
theology and practice from cowboy Christianity. I agree completely with Twiss
when he writes,
Rather than creating categories of true and
false, I think we would be better served if we considered syncretism to be the
exploration of the synthesis of faith, belief and practice in a dynamic process
of blending, adding, subtracting, changing, testing and working things out.
This process does not take anything away from the authority of Scripture or orthodoxy. The critical dynamic for this
process of producing loving and mature followers of Jesus, however, is that it
is not an individualistic venture. It is thoroughly rooted in a community of
fellow seekers. This is where safety and balance are found.[10]
We must come together as faith communities (i.e.,
local churches) with a generous amount of grace for ourselves and each other,
prayers for wisdom, and much patience and persistence, so that we can strive to
live out our faith in as authentic a way as possible in the midst of our
specific time and culture. Together, we can strive to determine what beliefs
and practices are “counteractive syncretism” — i.e., those that we should not allow to
build a nest on our heads. As human beings most of us want a clearly binary
theology where all beliefs and/or practices can be categorized as either true
or false, right or wrong, righteousness or sin, orthodox or heretical. Not everything
we believe or practice can be so labelled. That wasn’t the reality in the earliest
Jewish and/or Greco-Roman Christianity and it isn’t the reality today. Living
out our faith in Jesus in our twenty-first century mishmash of global culture
is as challenging as it has ever been. But I believe we can do so to the glory
of God, if as Paul admonished the divided and divisive Corinthian Christians,
But eagerly desire the
greater gifts. And now I will show you the most excellent way. If I speak in
the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding
gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all
mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but
have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender
my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient, love
is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude,
it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects,
always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.[11]
If there is anything, we need to seek to "restore," it must be our obedience to the New Testament commands to love others unconditionally (John 13:34–35) and to act toward one another with as much humility as we can possibly muster in each and every interaction (Phil 2:1–5). Then, regardless of whatever cultural beliefs or practices we are integrating into our faith (purposefully or not), we will be that "light to the world, a city set on a hill that cannot be hidden...and [that] gives light to everyone in the house." Thus people will "see our good deeds and praise our Father in heaven" (Matt 5:13–16).
[1] Richard Twiss, Rescuing the Gospel
from the Cowboys: A Native American Expression of the Jesus Way. (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2015) 34.
[2] Twiss 31.
[3] Twiss 35.
[4] Twiss 35.
[5] Twiss 35.
[6] Twiss 34.
[7] Twiss 37.
[8] Andrew
F. Walls, The Missionary Movement in Christian History: Studies in the Transmission
of Faith, (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, September 2004), 223, 234-235.
[9] Twiss 34.
[10] Twiss 33.
[11] 1 Corinthians 12:31–13:8a
No comments:
Post a Comment