I think I am a reasonably well-read person, but last week I learned 2 new words. One is prorogue, which as I assume you all know by now means to discontinue a session. And as we know, the governor general discontinued the current sitting of parliament. The other word is syncretism. And thanks to Google and Wikapedia, I have cut and pasted some definition/explanation as follows:

Religious syncretism exhibits blending of two or more religious belief systems into a new system, or the incorporation into a religious tradition of beliefs from unrelated traditions. This can occur for many reasons, and the latter scenario happens quite commonly in areas where multiple religious traditions exist in proximity and function actively in the culture, or when a culture is conquered, and the conquerors bring their religious beliefs with them, but do not succeed in entirely eradicating the old beliefs or, especially, practices.

Religions may have syncretic elements to their beliefs or history, but adherents of so-labeled systems often frown on applying the label, especially adherents who belong to "revealed" religious systems, such as the Abrahamic religions, or any system that exhibits an exclusivist approach. Such adherents sometimes see syncretism as a betrayal of their pure truth. By this reasoning, adding an incompatible belief corrupts the original religion, rendering it no longer true. Indeed, critics of a specific syncretistic trend may sometimes use the word "syncretism" as a disparaging epithet, as a charge implying that those who seek to incorporate a new view, belief, or practice into a religious system actually distort the original faith. Non-exclusivist systems of belief, on the other hand, may feel quite free to incorporate other traditions into their own.

In modern secular society, religious innovators sometimes create new religions syncretically as a mechanism to reduce inter-religious tension and enmity, often with the effect of offending the original religions in question. Such religions, however, do maintain some appeal to a less exclusivist audience. Discussions of some of these blended religions appear in the individual sections below.

One can contrast Christian syncretism with contextualization or inculturation, the practice of making Christianity relevant to a culture.

I have learned from my pastor and friend, Jonathan Gibson, that it is syncretism at work that is causing many people to try and mold traditional Christian teaching into something more palatable for today's culture. This isn't something new, but it seems to by very prevalent right now, particularly in the Anglican church. Just Google Bishop Jack Pike and you will see that that this kind of thinking, that I might consider heresy, has been going on for a long time. Heresy? Yep. As part of a course being offered at the church I attend, we have studied the basics of Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and other cults/sects/religions. Oddly, I have had many interesting discussions with people of these other faiths. But the tolerance and open exchange of ideas and thoughts disappears when talking to some who consider themselves atheists or agnostics. They don't want to smell what you're cooking. And, these same kinds of discussions can get downright ugly between Christians as there now seems to be at least 2 trains of thought in the Christian world today. One is the acceptance of the faith once taught and revealed to us through scripture, which I'll call the traditional, and the other is a "new" interpretation of that faith once taught which supposedly fits better within the society and culture that we live in today, which I'll call liberal. This interpretation is the result of syncretism.

I am traditional. I have been called unchristian, intolerant, a bigot, a liar, a rabble-rouser etc etc. by people that I consider friends during discussions of a religious nature that touched on certain topics that seem make the more liberal-minded uncomfortable.

But let me take a step back. Last week, my Lebanese barber wished me a merry Christmas. I don't think he is a Christian, but nonetheless he seems to realize a large number of his customers are and so he acknowledges the season. I also talked to my insurance agent the same day. She wished me a happy holiday season. She is a very nice lady and I'm sure was just being "politically" correct in her acknowledgement of the season. Once again I was reminded about political correctness. Religious political correctness. It is not the Muslim, Hindu or religions like those who are causing the political correctness that has taken the Christ out of Christmas and the stuff like that which our politicians seem to love embracing. It is the growing atheist/agnostic/lapsed Christian voice that is making those who believe in the faith this country was founded on a minority. We have lost our voice and influence. I used to ask why and how. Now, I think am gaining insight into the answer to this question.

The North American world seems to see fundamentalist Christians as too narrow-minded, too black and white. And the other side of the spectrum are churches like the Unitarian church, too liberal, anything goes. And the media loves to point out how Christians cannot all agree on what is central to the faith they profess. And then there are us Anglicans, who cannot agree on what we believe in and we're in the same denomination. It is little wonder to me that those that surround us don't take us too seriously. How can we possibly influence a godless society for Christ when we can't agree among ourselves what we believe in? We have bishops (like Jack Pike) such as Michael Ingham and John Spong who write books and spout theology that a University of Calgary religious studies professor considers to be heresy. But they're still bishops because even at the very top "political" levels of the Anglican hierarchy, no one will say for sure what they, or Anglicans as a whole, believe. So, it would seem that one of the biggest mission-fields of non-believers, or at perhaps people who have lost their way, exists within the Anglican church. Of course, those that think more liberally would say the same thing about me, stating that I'm the one who needs to see things the new Christian way.This new way brings into question issues like the validity of the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, the resurrection, Jesus as messiah, belief in Jesus as the only way to heaven etc. The bible just becomes a story rather than a guidebook for the Christian life. Jesus is no longer the way, the truth and the life. He's just an influential man, maybe a prophet, who had a new way and a lot of followers. His way went against the grain of the Jewish and Roman thought of the day and ultimately, it got him crucified. So no Easter either (how did that bunny get in there?).

Did what you just read make you think, wait a minute - if you don't believe these things, you are not really a Christian. Aren't those things essential to our faith? And I would say that yes indeed, they are. So the question is, if you don't believe that stuff, why are you a Christian? I read in a Calgary Herald from last weekend about a Pentecostal minister who gradually decided he no longer believed in what Christianity professed and as a result, he became an atheist. I have no problem with that because the process of becoming a Christian is the same, you come to believe in Christ instead of what you once believed. In both cases, it is a process in which one gathers enough information to make an informed decision about what one believes and how this information will affect the way the live - the goal. Within the process, one can test ideas to accept or reject them, but I don't see how one can change them to suit themselves and still keep the original goal as the end result.

Within the Anglican church, it seems the beliefs can be changed as needed so as not to offend anyone or make them think too hard, aka syncretism. No one moves, no one gets hurt. What a great mission statement! Most churches are just community centers or elite social clubs that offer a Sunday morning service. Evangelism is a dirty word. Tithing is a dirty word. Accountability is a dirty word. If anyone wants to join us they can. Fund-raising is essential to keep the old buildings running and comfortable for the club members. Maybe Lion's Clubs or Rotary clubs do more good in the world and communities than churches. Why is this so? Because no one has called any of the leaders on what they believe or teach, even though the vows that take when ordained are quite specific as to what they, as priests, or bishops are supposed to believe and teach. So what is the point of having leaders - bishops etc. if they really have no control over those they "employ". There are no performance appraisals or evaluations of any sort. The entire process seems flawed to me. So terribly flawed that there only a small handful of people here in North America that are truly defending the faith.

Here's another news flash. Even though no one seems to be in charge, churches, dioceses etc. are not democracies. Often, it is hard to tell who is in charge. Think about this - most key decisions above the parish level are made at synods (like an annual general meeting). Each church, depending on it's membership, is allowed to send a certain number of delegates to a synod. These delegates are supposed to be knowledgeable and representative of the will of the parish they attend. Are they? I know churches that don't make choosing synod delegates a big deal. The people chosen as delegates often volunteer to let their names stand for an election, sometimes minutes before the election takes place. Church elections, in my opinion, are like popularity contests. Hence, elections become more like appointments of those willing to be synod delegates, based on their popularity or status in the church pecking order. These delegates go to synod and then they elect people, generally who are total strangers to them, to go to provincial synod. This process repeats for national synod. So at the end of the day, did the people at all these synods really represent the wishes and ideas of whole of the Anglican membership. Not likely. But these delegates were sure able to push whatever pet project or cause that they support.

What to do? In a system that seems so completely screwed up, I often wonder why I even bother going to church. But the church I attend is all the things I think a Christian church should be. Are we just an island in a vast ocean of other churches, or are there other places that have maintained the integrity of Christian faith? I am sure there are other churches that hold true to the teachings of the bible. The question is, what can be done to stem the growing swell of conformation to secular trends. Does the regular bible-believing Joe have a voice? Or, is it easier to sleep in and then watch football on Sunday mornings? I am having more and more trouble deciding how to answer the basic question - why church?

DB