I do wish more women would read what this woman writes….
“Christianity is exclusive of people who come another way, except through the Son. Those who try to come in another way are a thief and a robber. (John 10:1). The following “inclusive” doctrines or religions are false.”
John Bunyan writes a bit about this in his Classic Pilgrim’s Progress….but so much of history’s and today’s “Spirituality” doesn’t accept that. It’s pretty common to be Ecumenical, Synergistic or even into Syncretism .
I did a ChatGPT study on these…I think it got them correctly described…
Those three terms—ecumenical, synergistic, and syncretistic—often get used loosely today, but they carry very different meanings depending on whether you’re speaking from a theological, sociological, or lived-experience perspective. Here’s how they’re generally understood in contemporary religious and spiritual practice.
1. Ecumenical
“Different traditions in dialogue and cooperation, without merging beliefs.”
How it’s viewed today
Mainstream and broadly accepted, especially within Christianity. Emphasizes unity, mutual respect, and collaboration while preserving doctrinal boundaries. Seen positively by churches engaged in: Joint worship services (e.g., prayer weeks, disaster response services) Social justice and humanitarian efforts Theological dialogue (e.g., Catholic–Protestant–Orthodox conversations)
In lived worship experience
Shared prayers or scripture readings Multiple denominations participating in one service Clergy exchanging pulpits without sacramental mixing (usually)
Typical critique
Some worry it can lead to doctrinal dilution or “lowest common denominator” faith. Others argue it’s essential for Christian witness in a pluralistic world.
Overall reputation:
✅ Legitimate, constructive, and often encouraged
⚠️ Boundaries still matter
2. Synergistic (Religious or Spiritual Synergy)
“Different traditions cooperating in ways that enrich one another.”
This term is less formal in religious studies but increasingly common in practice.
How it’s viewed today
Often pragmatic rather than theological Common in: Interfaith service projects Retreats blending disciplines (e.g., Christian prayer + mindfulness) Charismatic or renewal movements that emphasize shared spiritual experience
In lived worship experience
Borrowing methods rather than beliefs: Silence, breath prayer, chanting Community practices like small groups or accountability circles Focus on what works spiritually rather than strict doctrinal origin
Typical critique
Can drift toward syncretism if not self-aware Sometimes accused of being experiential over theological
Overall reputation:
🟡 Generally accepted in practice
⚠️ Often undefined theologically
🧭 Depends on intention and clarity
3. Syncretism
“Blending beliefs from different religions into a new system.”
How it’s viewed today
Most controversial of the three Viewed very differently depending on perspective: Institutional religions: often seen negatively Spiritual-but-not-religious (SBNR): often embraced Anthropologists: value-neutral and descriptive
In lived worship experience
Individuals mixing: Christian language with Eastern metaphysics Indigenous rituals with modern spirituality Astrology, energy work, prayer, and meditation “My truth” rather than creedal commitments
Typical critique
From orthodox traditions: Loss of internal coherence Detachment from historical revelation From critics of religion: Seen as authentic, adaptive, and post-institutional
Overall reputation:
❌ Problematic in most traditional theologies
✅ Normalized in modern spiritual culture
🌍 Very common globally
Side-by-Side Snapshot
Term
Core Idea
Institutional View
Lived Practice
Ecumenical
Cooperation without fusion
Largely positive
Shared worship & mission
Synergistic
Mutual enrichment
Cautiously accepted
Method sharing
Syncretistic
Belief blending
Usually rejected
Common among individuals
Big Picture: Why These Are So Common Now
Modern religious experience is shaped by:
Pluralism (daily exposure to many beliefs) Globalization Declining institutional authority Emphasis on experience over doctrine
As a result:
Ecumenism is official Synergy is practical Syncretism is personal
A Key Distinction Many Miss
A helpful litmus test often used by theologians:
“Am I sharing space, sharing tools, or sharing truth claims?”
Space → Ecumenical Tools → Synergistic Truth claims → Syncretistic
If you’d like, I can also:
Map these onto Christian orthodoxy vs modern spirituality Show how different denominations explicitly address them Compare how these play out in worship music, prayer styles, or sacraments
Just say where you’d like to go next.
Below is a conceptual map showing how ecumenism, synergy, and syncretism are understood when placed between Christian orthodoxy on one end and modern spirituality on the other. This isn’t about right or wrong so much as how meaning, authority, and truth are located.
The Spectrum
Christian Orthodoxy ⟵───────────────⟶ Modern Spirituality
(Creedal, revealed, communal) (Experiential, self-authorized, adaptive)
1. Ecumenical — “Unity without altering truth claims”
Where it sits
Firmly within Christian orthodoxy, though toward its relational edge.
Authority
Scripture, creeds, historic teaching remain normative Unity is moral and relational, not doctrinal fusion
How it looks in practice
Joint worship services (Advent, Good Friday, prayer vigils) Shared creeds (Apostles’, Nicene) Cooperation on mission, justice, charity
Orthodox boundary
“We can pray together because we recognize one Lord—
but we do not redefine who Christ is.”
Orthodox comfort level
🟢 High
This is usually defended as obedience to Christ’s prayer for unity (John 17).
2. Synergistic — “Shared practices, retained identities”
Where it sits
In the middle, bridging orthodoxy and modern spirituality.
Authority
Mixed: Tradition defines belief Experience informs practice Truth claims are preserved, but methods are flexible
How it looks in practice
Christians using mindfulness as attention, not metaphysics Contemplative prayer influenced by monastic or Eastern techniques Worship styles influenced by global music and affective expression
Orthodox tension
“Are we borrowing tools, or importing assumptions?”
Synergy becomes problematic only when practices quietly reshape beliefs.
Orthodox comfort level
🟡 Moderate to cautious
Accepted when clearly subordinated to Christian theology.
3. Syncretistic — “Truth is assembled, not received”
Where it sits
Decisively within modern spirituality, outside orthodox Christianity.
Authority
The self is final arbiter Experience outweighs revelation Coherence is emotional or pragmatic, not doctrinal
How it looks in practice
Jesus as one spiritual teacher among many Mixing prayer with astrology, energy work, or non-theistic metaphysics Language of “Christ consciousness” rather than incarnation
Orthodox boundary
“You cannot confess Christ and relativize him.”
From an orthodox view, syncretism changes what salvation, God, and truth mean.
Orthodox comfort level
🔴 Low to rejected
Often explicitly warned against in Scripture and tradition.
A Visual Table
Category
Ecumenical
Synergistic
Syncretistic
Truth source
Revelation
Revelation + experience
Experience
Christ
Lord
Lord, expressed through varied forms
Symbol / teacher
Doctrine
Fixed
Stable but flexible
Fluid
Community
Church-centered
Church-adjacent
Individual
Authority
External
Mixed
Internal
What Modern Spirituality Does Differently
Modern spirituality typically:
Treats beliefs as tools, not commitments Seeks integration over coherence Values personal resonance over historic continuity
This makes syncretism feel natural, even honest, while orthodoxy feels restrictive.
The Core Divide (In One Sentence)
Orthodoxy asks: “What has been revealed and entrusted to us?”
Modern spirituality asks: “What helps me grow and feel whole?”
Everything else flows from that.
Why Many People Live in the Middle
Many contemporary Christians function synergistically even if they profess orthodoxy:
They affirm creeds But curate spiritual practices And negotiate authority case by case
This is often less rebellion than adaptation to pluralism.
If you’d like, I can next:
Map this onto worship music, prayer, or sacraments Show how Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant traditions draw the lines differently Or trace how this shift developed historically (Enlightenment → modern SBNR)
Just tell me which direction you want to explore.
Below is a Christian–orthodox analysis of how several streams often cited in modern spirituality map into synergism, and why that approach ultimately departs from biblical Christianity—not because silence, prayer, or contemplation are wrong, but because of where authority, knowledge of God, and transformation are located.
I’ll proceed in three steps:
What synergism means in this context How each stream fits into it Why the Bible draws a firm boundary that synergism crosses
1. What “Synergism” Means Here (Important Clarification)
This is not the classical Christian doctrine of synergeia (human cooperation with grace in sanctification).
Here, synergism means:
Combining spiritual practices or epistemologies from outside biblical revelation with Christian language or goals, assuming they are neutral “tools” for knowing God.
The defining assumption is:
“Practices shape experience, and experience reveals truth.”
That assumption is where the problem begins.
2. How These Streams Map into Synergism
A. New Age Spirituality
Core move: Inner experience replaces revelation
God becomes impersonal energy or consciousness Salvation becomes awakening, not redemption Authority shifts to inner knowing
Synergistic overlap
Silence as access to divine knowledge Breath, visualization, mantras as “neutral” techniques Jesus reinterpreted as an enlightened exemplar
Biblical conflict
God speaks from outside us (Hebrews 1:1–2) Truth is revealed, not discovered inwardly Christ is not an archetype but Lord
“The heart is deceitful above all things” (Jer. 17:9)
B. Gnosticism (Ancient and Modern Forms)
Core move: Hidden knowledge saves
Salvation through special insight Material reality is diminished or suspect The self ascends through knowledge
Synergistic overlap
Esoteric interpretation of Scripture “Going beyond doctrine” to secret depths Elevation of experience over proclamation
Biblical conflict
The gospel is public, historical, proclaimed Salvation is through faith, not secret knowledge
“I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27)
Christianity is anti-gnostic at its core.
C. Eastern Mystical Practices (Hindu / Buddhist Roots)
Core move: Self-transcendence through technique
Ultimate reality is non-personal Enlightenment achieved through discipline The self dissolves into the Absolute
Synergistic overlap
Mindfulness detached from worldview Emptying the mind to access “presence” Non-dual language imported into prayer
Biblical conflict
God is personal and other Prayer is relational, not absorptive Transformation is covenantal, not ontological
“When you pray, say: Our Father” (Luke 11:2)
The Bible never directs believers to dissolve the self into God.
D. Desert Fathers (Why They’re Often Misused)
What they actually were
Fiercely Scripture-saturated Christ-centered and ascetic Practiced silence as self-denial, not revelation-seeking
Where synergism misreads them
Silence abstracted from repentance Hesychia turned into technique Apophatic language detached from incarnation
Key distinction
They fled the world to fight sin, not find hidden knowledge Scripture governed their silence
“Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner”
—not an empty mantra, but a theological confession
E. Roman Catholic Mystics
Orthodox intention
Deep love for Christ Obedience to Church authority Often corrective, not speculative
Synergistic risk
Private revelations elevated Experiential union emphasized without doctrinal guardrails Later readers detach practices from theology
Biblical tension
Experience is always subordinate to apostolic teaching No new mode of knowing God is promised
“Even if we or an angel from heaven preach another gospel…” (Gal. 1:8)
F. Contemporary Contemplative Practices
Core move: Practice-first spirituality
“Silence forms us” “Practices precede belief” “Stillness reveals God”
Synergistic structure
Borrowed techniques Christian vocabulary Experiential validation
Biblical conflict
God transforms through Word and Spirit, not method Silence is a response, not a pathway
“Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:17)
3. Why This Is Not Biblical (The Core Issue)
A. Epistemology: How God Is Known
Biblical Christianity
God reveals himself Truth comes by proclamation Scripture interprets experience
Synergism
Experience discloses truth Practices generate insight Scripture is filtered through feeling
That is a reversal the Bible never permits.
B. Anthropology: What Is Wrong with Us
Bible
We are not merely distracted We are dead in sin We need redemption, not awareness
Synergism
Assumes latent spiritual capacity Awakening replaces repentance Technique replaces grace
“You were dead in your trespasses” (Eph. 2:1)
Dead people do not self-actualize.
C. Christology: Who Jesus Is
Bible
Incarnate Son Unique mediator Historical redeemer
Synergism
Jesus as guide, model, or expression One path among many Often functionally replaceable
“There is one mediator between God and men” (1 Tim. 2:5)
D. Means of Grace: How Transformation Happens
Biblical means
Word Sacraments (where applicable) Prayer rooted in revelation Community and discipline
Synergistic substitution
Technique Interior stillness Self-curated spirituality
Nowhere does Scripture teach that method itself confers holiness.
The Bottom Line
Synergism fails biblically because it assumes:
God is accessed by technique rather than encountered by revelation.
Christian spirituality is not:
Ascent to God Discovery of divine depth Mastery of spiritual states
It is:
God descending to us Christ crucified and risen Faith responding to a spoken Word
A Final Clarifying Sentence
Silence, contemplation, and discipline are Christian
—but only when they remain servants of the Word, not substitutes for it.
If you’d like, I can:
Contrast biblical meditation vs Eastern mindfulness Examine Psalm 46:10 (“Be still”) in context Or show how the Reformation critiqued medieval mysticism
Just say the word.
Rainbow Trout 