PATCHWORK RELIGION: IN DEFENSE OF SYNCRETISM
A Sermon by Chuck Morgret
© 2015
What I’d like to talk about today is a word that’s kind of gotten a bad rap.
According to “dictionary.com”, syncretism is simply “the attempted reconciliation
or union of different or opposing principles, practices, or parties, as in philosophy
or religion.” Seems innocent enough, but if you’ve heard the word at all it’s
probably been in a dismissive or accusatory sense. I think when I’ve heard the
word it’s usually been preceded by the words “accused of.”
The term is usually used in an institutional sense, to refer to the beliefs or
practices of a religious group or tradition. But I also want to talk about the same
concept at an individual level. There’s probably a perfectly good word for that, but
I haven’t found it so I will use “syncretism” to refer to both the institutional and
individual levels. Which changes the scope of my talk a bit, I’ll admit. It’s probably
a misuse of the word, but I’m going to do it anyway.
In researching this talk, I ran across some discussion of a related topic, “cultural
appropriation.” Although that’s not the main subject of my talk today, it does
overlap a bit so I need to say a few things about it before I move on. The term
“cultural appropriation” is also generally used in a negative sense – the idea
being that it is a means by which a dominant culture absorbs and assimilates,
and thus effectively eliminates, minority cultures. When I read about it, I get the
distinct impression that, as a liberal and a UU, I’m supposed to be against it on
principle. But the world is much more complicated than that, of course.
It can be a bad thing, if it’s done in a mocking, derogatory or disrespectful way, or
of course in cases of outright theft. But cultural mixing is not a bad thing. Cultures
change. They grow, shrink, arise, flourish, decline and disappear. As long as
people treat each other with respect and compassion, there’s really nothing
wrong with that. What people do in a civilized world is compare notes and learn
from each other. I think one can argue that the notion of rigidly constrained
cultural boundaries is a dangerous one. Those boundaries promote intercultural
conflict, jealousy, misunderstanding, and distrust. Being compelled to stay within
one’s cultural heritage inhibits individual freedom and personal growth. A person
should not be permanently pigeonholed into a particular culture because of
where they were born or who their parents were.
I’ve heard it said that the old metaphor of America as a melting pot – where
cultural identities all swirl together and we are assimilated into a common,
uniform culture – is outdated and should be replaced with the metaphor of a
salad bowl – where we all live together but maintain our separate and distinct
cultural identities. Those aren’t the only choices! I’m not sure why it has to be a
food metaphor, but as long as it does, why can’t we be, say, a big ol’ pot of
1
jambalaya, where the individual ingredients keep their distinct identities but they
all flavor each other, and all those flavors combine into something much greater
than the sum of the parts?
DANGERS OF RIGID BELIEF SYSTEMS
And now I’ll try to get back on topic…
Rigid religious boundaries, like rigid cultural boundaries, are a very dangerous
thing. Sadly, scanning the world news on just about any given day will support
that observation.
Many religious leaders fear dilution of the purity of their faith – they believe, and
insist that their followers believe, that there is one right way to believe and live,
and only they have it! They fear that any tempering of that message will lead to
attrition of their membership as followers are tempted away from the true path.
Interestingly, this seems to be true even within decentralized faiths.
Their followers go along with this for complex reasons. There is a human
tendency to gravitate toward “hero worship”. That is, we make the leap from
revering a leader or teacher because their words ring true and resonate with us
to blindly accepting anything they say because we revere them. We elevate them
to godhood. When we do that – when we stop bringing a healthy dose of
skepticism to bear on what we are asked to believe – we are in danger of being
led astray. People want certainty and clarity in an uncertain and ambiguous
world, and those who appear to offer it have a strong appeal. There’s also a
perceived gain in status that comes with belonging to an exclusive group, even if
that status is gained at the expense of those who don’t belong.
Rigid, exclusive religious belief systems lead their adherents to see the world
from an “us versus them” perspective, with only three possible ultimate outcomes
for the “us” involved: one, we convert everyone to our way – whether it’s by force
or through our superior debating skills doesn’t really matter; two, we eliminate
them; or three, they eliminate us. Finding common ground would require us to
compromise our beliefs – and maybe even think – and we just can’t allow that!
This is, of course, a recipe for never-ending strife and hatred, punctuated by outand-out warfare. Insistence on adherence to unbending belief systems also
stifles creativity and – as history clearly shows – scientific progress. One
observation I came away from reading Jared Diamond’s “Guns, Germs and
Steel” with was that, historically, organized religion has really had little overall
effect on the progress of civilization – except in those cases where it kept the
brakes on, by making specific advances taboo.
Here’s a quote from the current Dalai Lama: “If scientific analysis were
conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must
accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.” How refreshing it
would be if all religious leaders felt that way!
2
If there really is one shining way that is the only path to salvation, we’re all in big
trouble, because I don’t see anything to indicate that anybody has stumbled
across it yet. Humans aren’t perfect, and our beliefs need to grow and evolve
right along with us. Each of us can assert that we have found a path that works
for us, if that’s the case, but we need to be humble enough to realize that that
doesn’t make it the only valid path, and that even we might need a course
correction now and then.
NEARLY ALL RELIGIONS ARE SYNCRETIC
As I was putting together some examples of religions that could be characterized
as syncretic, I came to the realization that nearly all religions are syncretic, in one
way or another. Genuinely new ideas arising from thin air are few and far
between. From our earliest ancestors on, most religions have been derived from
or built on earlier ones, and any time somebody combined beliefs from two or
more sources, they were…you got it…committing syncretism. Actually, I count it
as syncretism even if they only took beliefs from one existing source and grafted
new beliefs onto them. That fits the definition, I think, because they were thus
attempting to reconcile their new beliefs with the older ones.
A few examples:




I don’t claim to know much about the origins of Judaism, but old as it is I’ve
gathered that it likely evolved from even older Babylonian and Canaanite
religions.
The various polytheistic religions of the ancient Greco-Roman world borrowed
heavily from each other -- so much so that from our modern perspective we
think of them as the same religions with different terminology.
The later Greek and Roman “Mystery” religions – which were conceptually
similar to Gnosticism – were grafted onto the existing polytheistic traditions.
Why would they have done that instead of just creating something new?
Presumably so as to attract followers from within those religions.
Christianity is arguably syncretic in several senses. One, it of course grew out
of Judaism. As to why it was important for early Christianity to be perceived
as the culmination of Judaism rather than as a completely new religion –
leading to a two-thousand-year love-hate relationship – I will skip the details,
but if you’re interested I strongly recommend Bart Ehrman’s Teaching
Company® course, “History of Early Christianity.” Two, there’s a highly
debatable but entertaining view that Christianity represented an attempt to
graft a Mystery religion onto Judaism – an attempt that went seriously awry.
Three, Christian motifs such as the Virgin Birth and Resurrection show up in
earlier religions – I’m not going to take sides on what that means today, but it
certainly has a syncretic element. And four (speaking of cultural
appropriation) one way Christianity spread was by co-opting pagan traditions
and holidays whenever necessary. Hence we have bunnies and eggs
somehow mixed up with celebrating the resurrection of Jesus, and his
3


birthday celebrated at the winter solstice, with decorated evergreens, Yule
logs and various other customs somehow tied in.
In the same sense that Christianity grew from Judaism, Islam grew out of the
same Abrahamic tradition. It is my understanding that the Islamic view is that
Mohammed’s teachings don’t replace Judeo-Christian teachings, they extend
and complete them.
In much the same sense, Mormonism is also built on a Christian foundation,
with one more prophet – Joseph Smith in this case – added on.
RELIGIONS AT THE FRINGES
Every major religious tradition seems to have, or have had, outlying sects that
push the boundaries and sometimes cross them. I want to give you a few
examples of what I think of as “religions at the fringes”:




Leaving aside whether Christianity itself was intended to be a Mystery
religion, the early Christian Gnostics appear to have been trying to bridge the
gap.
Zen Buddhism was more or less what happened when Indian Buddhism met
Chinese Taoism.
Within Islam, we have Sufism, a mystical tradition that has some parallels
with gnostic or Mystery religions. Whether Sufism is actually syncretic – that
is, whether it was influenced by interaction with other religions – is apparently
not clear.
The Druze religion, which grew out of Shia Islam long ago, is a sort of Islamic
version of Gnosticism that apparently borrows from other philosophies as
well. (Coincidentally, the name by which they refer to themselves translates to
“the Unitarians.”)
A couple of religious movements that are unabashedly syncretic include:


Wicca: Though rooted in much older traditions, the modern version of Wicca
was introduced in England by Gerald Gardner in 1954. (Since then, it has
apparently branched off into multiple offshoots.) As I understand it, Wicca
represents an attempt to rescue and revive a diverse set of ancient earthbased European spiritual traditions by combining them into a single
“neopagan” religion – not a continuation of a specific ancient religion.
Falun Gong: Until recently, all I knew or thought I knew was that Falun Gong
was some sort of Chinese cult that ran afoul of the Chinese government,
provoking a brutal suppression. The last part is true; however, Falun Gong is
not a cult by any reasonable definition. The tradition was based on the
teachings of one man, Li Hongzhi, who in 1992 combined elements of
Qigong, Buddhism, Taoism and maybe some other things into a rather
simplistic practice. Although he’s the only spiritual leader, there are no
demands placed on adherents, nobody asks for money, and there’s not much
in the way of an organizational structure. It’s really hard to see how it could be
4
seen as dangerous, so it’s hard to understand how it provoked such a brutal
crackdown.
FOLKS AT THE FRINGES
I’d also like to give you a few examples of individuals who push the boundaries
from within their own religious traditions. I consider these people my heroes as
well as my teachers. I’m including people who are not overt syncretists but are
willing to question the orthodox views of their traditions in profound ways. I’m
doing this because, one, I really admire their courageous willingness to challenge
orthodoxy and two, even when it’s not overt, their willingness to question is likely
at least heightened by exposure to beliefs outside their own faith. In no particular
order, these include:








John Shelby Spong: Controversial retired Episcopal bishop, author of such
books as “Why Christianity Must Change or Die,” calling for, as best I recall, a
much more metaphorical interpretation of Christianity.
Thich Nhat Hanh: The Vietnamese Buddhist monk who has, among many
other things, attempted to reconcile Buddhist and Christian beliefs, most
notably in his book “Living Buddha, Living Christ”, pioneered the concept of
“engaged Buddhism”, and has endeavored to make Buddhist teachings more
universally accessible.
The current Dalai Lama: Has done much to further interfaith dialogue and to
seek common ground between religions. Here’s a quote from him: “If scientific
analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be
false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those
claims.” How refreshing it would be if all religious leaders felt that way!
Thomas Merton: A Trappist monk who also worked to seek common ground
between religions, particularly exploring parallels between Christianity and
Zen philosophy.
Thomas Keating: Also a Trappist monk, one of the developers of Centering
Prayer, a Christian meditative practice of sorts, and another promoter of
interfaith dialogue.
Michael Dowd & Connie Barlow: Self-proclaimed “evolutionary evangelists”
who travel around the country in an RV emblazoned with a logo of a Jesus
fish kissing a Darwin fish. They’ve spoken to many audiences, including
hundreds of UU churches, in an endeavor to reconcile religion and
evolutionary science. Michael is the author of “Thank God for Evolution.”
Rami Shapiro: A rabbi with extensive Zen training, Rami is a prolific author
and an engaging speaker. He’s coined the term “spiritually independent” to
replace “spiritual but not religious.” Along with Episcopal priest Gordon
Peerman, he conducts the “One River Wisdom School” quarterly in Sewanee,
Tennessee, which combines teachings and practices from multiple traditions,
as reflected in his book “Perennial Wisdom for the Spiritually Independent.”
Eckhart Tolle: I confess that I haven’t read Tolle, but I’m aware of his
popularity and I have “The Power of Now” waiting in my to-be-read pile.
5





According to the New York Times, Tolle is "not identified with any religion, but
uses teachings from Zen Buddhism, Sufism, Hinduism and the Bible"...which
sounds pretty syncretic to me.
Matthew Fox: Former Catholic friar who was expelled from the Dominican
order and subsequently became an Episcopal priest. Fox is the author of
“One River, Many Wells,” a compendium of wisdom from many faiths, from
which the “One River Wisdom School” presumably took its name.
Rumi: 13th-century Persian Sufi mystic and poet, extensively quoted in Fox’s
book.
Meister Eckhart: 13th/14th century Dominican friar and Christian mystic
accused of heresy, also extensively quoted in Fox’s book…and in honor of
whom Eckhart Tolle changed his given name, incidentally.
Origen: Early Christian theologian who at least speculated about such things
as reincarnation and universal salvation…that is, that all souls are ultimately
reconciled with God. It’s debatable whether he actually espoused those
things, but he at least thought about them…
Reformers such as Martin Luther; English “dissenters” of the 17th and 18th
century, including George Fox, who founded the Quakers, and Joseph
Priestley, who after being run out of England, introduced English Unitarianism
to America; even Pope Francis, for crying out loud, who is about as far from a
syncretist as you can get but at least seems to be pushing Catholicism to take
a long hard look in the mirror.
IN DEFENSE OF SYNCRETISM
Now, as to why I think syncretism’s a good thing: Creativity almost always
consists not of inventing new concepts (or things, or ideas, or design elements,
etc.) from scratch, but rather of combining existing concepts in new and
interesting ways. That is, it’s less about creating new things than it is about
creating new connections between existing things.
We have to seek out ways to promote understanding between adherents of
different religions, and to do that we at least have to look for ways to reconcile
belief systems. One way of doing that, whether at an institutional or individual
level, is to experiment with fitting different ideas or practices together to create
something new. (I’d note, by the way, that institutional change begins at the
individual level.) If we don’t work toward a common understanding or at least a
deeper tolerance between religions, we’re condemning humanity to a pretty
bloody future.
The dismissive view of syncretism is that it’s just more or less randomly taking
pieces from various traditions and throwing them together. But there’s more to it
than that! It’s not just throwing a bunch of things into a grab bag – it’s tying them
together in a way that makes sense. It’s noting how things might fit together and
support each other, perhaps with a little tweaking or a little change in
perspective…making a whole that is greater than the sum of the parts.
6
Co-opting the trappings of a religion – rituals, symbols and practices – outside
their full context might be disrespectful (depending on the circumstances), but
borrowing and building on ideas is not. That said, we can see from many mystical
and contemplative traditions that much “truth” or enlightenment is experiential,
not easily conveyed by words alone – so it may be necessary to explore and
adapt some practices from within existing traditions. I don’t think, for example,
that it’s somehow disrespectful for me to practice mindfulness meditation without
committing myself to Buddhism…though it might be disrespectful not to
acknowledge the origin of the practice and to pretend I invented it…or to pretend
that sitting still now and then makes me a Zen master.
I don’t believe it’s true that all paths are valid. There is perhaps only one ultimate
truth, and I do believe that there are many paths that lead there or at least head
toward it, but I think there are also a lot of paths that don’t. If we can learn from
the experiences of those who’ve gotten partway there, or the mistakes of those
who’ve gone up blind alleys, and we can perhaps combine those experiences
into a better way, why wouldn’t we?
As soon as one realizes how breathtaking the mosaic of religious and
philosophical beliefs is, one realizes how silly a notion is that there is one right
way to think or to live…that there is one narrow set of beliefs that leads to
salvation, or happiness, or fulfillment, or enlightenment. There are
teachings…and practices!...that are common or at least similar across religious
boundaries. If you don’t study multiple religious and philosophical traditions, or at
least learn from those who have, you can go through a lifetime without realizing
that. Even if you ultimately stay within the tradition where you started, by peeking
around outside the box, you can broaden your understanding and enrich your
life.
UU ENCOURAGES INDIVIDUAL SYNCRETISM
There are people within Christianity accused of practicing “cafeteria-style”
religion – that is, of picking the parts they want to believe and ignoring the rest.
(Another food metaphor!) Those accusations come, of course, from those who
believe that you have to accept the belief system completely or not at all. (We’ll
leave aside the question of who gets to define the belief system in the first place.)
In the UU world, we have a much larger cafeteria line to choose from! So the
accusation sometimes leveled at us is even broader – that we can believe
anything we want to believe! We even dare to switch between lines in the
cafeteria, selecting some beliefs from one tradition and some from another! (And
if we don’t like what we see, we can even go back in the kitchen and whip up
something new!)
Done without discipline and a healthy skepticism, “cafeteria-style” syncretism is
perhaps deserving of criticism. Is it true that we can believe whatever we want?
No! We don’t have a creed, certainly, but we have our seven principles.
Whatever personal creed or worldview we develop or adopt should be tested
7
against those principles. Compassion, for example, arises immediately from our
first principle, which is to affirm and promote the inherent worth and dignity of
every person. If a belief system leads us to feel justified in belittling, oppressing
or hating an entire class of people – in seeing them as a dehumanized mass
rather than as individuals – it simply isn’t consistent with Unitarian Universalism,
and we need to examine where we went off the track. This is where “responsible”
comes in in our fourth principle: that we affirm and promote a free and
responsible search for truth and meaning.
We are free to range far and wide in our search, but we are responsible for
insuring that the beliefs we adopt are consistent with our UU principles and with
any additional principles we consider important, and for being willing to change
our beliefs in the face of new evidence. Ideally, we ought to keep an eye on
whether our belief systems are self-consistent, too, but humans are remarkably
adept at holding contradictory beliefs and still continuing to function. So maybe
self-consistency is overrated.
Unlike some religions, we don’t assert that our principles are the infallible word of
God or of Her chosen representatives. They could be changed if we as an
Association agree on a need to do so. And there’s plenty of room to haggle over
their precise interpretation. So reasonable people can disagree over whether a
given belief is completely consistent with UU principles. That said, there are
many beliefs extant in the world that are clearly not acceptable to UU’s. No, we
can’t “believe anything we want” and no, not all paths are valid. But we do have
an awful lot of freedom to explore.
Gnostics were encouraged to create once they became enlightened. Elaine
Pagels, in “The Gnostic Gospels,” says: “Like circles of artists today, gnostics
considered original creative invention to be the mark of anyone who becomes
spiritually alive. Each one, like students of a painter or writer, expected to
express his own perceptions by revising and transforming what he was taught.
Whoever merely repeated his teacher’s words was considered immature.” This
attitude, of course, aggravated orthodox Christian leaders no end, most notably
Bishop Ireneaus.
I hope you all will take a hint from the Gnostics – find your spiritual muse, your
own insights, then go create something new!
8