It could also mean that your original belief is rendered “impure” by adding some other religious experience. But although I understand why the word is controversial, the fact of syncretism for the Abrahamic faiths is undeniable. In fact, the ability to be accommodate other religious experiences is one of the strengths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

In one sense, there is little doubt that syncretism plays a major role in the development of each of these faiths. That statement can be made even without describing the obvious dependency of many Christian and Islamic beliefs on the historic religion of Israel.

How could there be a Christian Last Supper or a Eucharist if there had not been a Jewish Passover meal? How could there be an Islamic prohibition against eating pork, if there were no Kosher rules already in the Hebrew Bible? Moreover, Christianity has adopted customs for its feast days taken from Celtic and Germanic religion, just as Arabic and Persian elements help distinguish rituals and beliefs of today’s Sunni and Shiite Muslims.

But Abrahamic syncretism began with Abraham. Would male circumcision have acquired religious meaning for the descendants of Abraham had it not already been practiced for centuries among the Egyptians? How could there be a Hebrew Noah without a Sumerian Gilgamesh? Would there ever had been an anointed King of Israel (a messiah, if you will), had not surrounding nations celebrated the religious powers of their kings?

Each of these issues provide clear historical and archaeological evidence of the influence of pagan religions of the time on belief among the Hebrews. The only arguments against these facts concern interpretation: Did such admixtures constitute “imitation” by Jews of other religions? Does such borrowing from paganism mean that the Hebrew religion was “inferior” at that time? When the answers of interpretation are provided by theologians, expect words like “revelation” and “God’s Word” to appear.

In addressing the less complex question posed this week, a few definitions are in order. (I have no intention of forcing people to accept my views, but I think it serves clarity to be as precise as possible about terms so as to avoid causing greater confusion.)

The theologian, Dr. Jaime Vidal, made a distinction useful for this issue in dialogue with Dr. Gustavo Benavides in An Enduring Flame, a volume I helped edit some years ago. Vidal coined the word “synthesization” to distinguish the absorption of non-substantial practices and beliefs by the Abrahamic religions from “syncretization” which is engaged with doctrinal issues.

Key to Vidal’s understanding – and Benavides’ critique – is an analogy with how grammar rules affect meaning. In offering an example of synthesization, Vidal cites the Spanish Catholic harvest festivals for wheat that were given religious significance in saints’ days, and like references to the Eucharist.

The harvest festivals for the Aztecs of Mexico celebrated their crop of corn, but had religious references to their controlling deity, Centeotl. So, reasons Vidal, both faiths understood the “grammar” of a festival: “God brings the harvest.” If the Mexicans placed the same content upon the term “God” as did the Christians, their belief would coincide with Catholic doctrine. Just as “corn” could replace “wheat” without distorting the meaning of “harvest,” the Christian God could replace the Aztec God.

In such a case, the faiths would have been “synthesized.” For Dr. Benavides, on the other hand, the Aztecs might say “Dios” but most would mean “Centeotl.” Refusing to equate military dominance by the Spaniards with religious ascendancy, Benevides predicted that the Aztec understanding was likely found among the common people. For him, "syncretization" is the better term because the native belief endured underneath the guise of similar Christian rituals. And let me add that along with both scholars, I would refuse to say that the Aztecs were “confused” or “ignorant” for holding to their original faith by resort to syncretism.

This is not the place to fight such battles. The distinction is useful, however, in reviewing whether incorporation of yoga positions for prayer, to give one example, constitutes replacement of the Abrahamic faith with an “impure” element, or an enrichment with useful technique. The celebrated monk and author, Thomas Merton, passed away while in dialogue with Buddhist monks about much the same subject.

In other words, it seems to me, that a case could be made that synthesization is completely orthodox adaptation that does not detract from the vitality of faith in any of the Abrahamic traditions. And I’ll say a rosary on my beads (another borrowing from the East) for anyone who doubts the ability to be completely orthodox while incorporating what is valuable in other religions.