Previous: Appendix A
Syncretism, Divine Authority, and the Question of Sacred Time
If anthropological missiology asks how the gospel faithfully inhabits culture, syncretism asks a more dangerous question: Who has authority to define worship?
This distinction becomes most acute when considering sacred time—particularly the relationship between the seventh-day Sabbath and Sunday observance.
To approach this clearly, Scripture, history, and theology must again be kept in proper order.
1. Sacred Time in Scripture: Command, Not Convention
Unlike cultural festivals or commemorative observances, the Sabbath enters Scripture not as human testimony but as divine action and command.
The seventh-day Sabbath is:
- instituted at Creation (Genesis 2:1–3),
- sanctified by God Himself,
- embedded within the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:8–11),
- and reaffirmed as covenantal sign (Exodus 31:13–17).
The Sabbath is not introduced as a cultural practice Israel developed, but as a rhythm God established. It precedes sin, ethnicity, and nationhood. Scripture consistently grounds it in divine authority rather than human response.
Jesus does not relativize the Sabbath. He locates its purpose and authority in Himself:
“The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27–28).
Importantly, Christ claims lordship over the Sabbath, not the authority to abolish or redefine it. His controversies concern misuse and distortion, not the Sabbath’s legitimacy.
Thus, biblically speaking, the Sabbath belongs to a category fundamentally different from Christmas or Easter. It is not optional testimony. It is covenantal law.
2. The Early Church: Continuity, Not Replacement
The earliest Christian communities were overwhelmingly Jewish in composition and theological imagination. They did not conceive of themselves as founding a new religion with a new law, but as proclaiming Israel’s Messiah.
The New Testament records:
- continued Sabbath synagogue worship (Acts 13:42–44; Acts 16:13; Acts 18:4),
- alongside first-day gatherings for teaching and fellowship (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2).
These first-day gatherings are descriptive, not prescriptive. They commemorate resurrection; they do not legislate sacred time.
Early church writings reflect this same pattern.
- Ignatius of Antioch speaks of Christians living “according to the Lord’s life,” not abolishing the Sabbath.
- Justin Martyr describes Sunday gatherings but does not claim Sabbath replacement.
- No first- or second-century source claims divine authority to change the fourth commandment.
The early church distinguished between commemoration and command. Sunday was meaningful; the Sabbath remained scripturally grounded.
3. From Commemoration to Authority: A Historical Shift
The shift from Sunday gathering to Sunday sacredness did not occur all at once. It developed gradually as ecclesial authority increased and Jewish-Christian separation hardened.
Key factors included:
- anti-Jewish sentiment after the Jewish revolts,
- imperial favor under Constantine,
- and the growing authority of the institutional church.
By the fourth century, civil legislation and church councils began treating Sunday not merely as commemorative, but as normative and sacred.
This is a crucial theological shift.
Sacred time was no longer grounded primarily in Scripture, but in ecclesial authority. The question subtly changed from “What has God commanded?” to “What has the Church authorized?”
This is where the issue ceases to be anthropological missiology and becomes something else entirely.
4. Syncretism Reconsidered: Authority, Not Aesthetics
Syncretism is often imagined as pagan symbols sneaking into Christian worship. Biblically and historically, it is more precise to define syncretism as a transfer or blending of spiritual authority.
In this sense, the Sabbath/Sunday issue is not about pagan festivals or solar imagery, but about who possesses authority to define worship and law.
When any institution—however venerable—claims the authority to:
- alter divine command,
- redefine covenantal signs,
- or relocate sacred time apart from Scripture,
a theological boundary has been crossed.
This is not merely tradition. It is legislative substitution.
Scripture warns explicitly against this dynamic:
- “You shall not add to the word… nor take from it” (Deuteronomy 12:32).
- “They shall think to change times and law” (Daniel 7:25).
- “Why do you submit to regulations… according to human precepts?” (Colossians 2:20–22).
Here syncretism does not take the form of pagan imagery, but of human authority occupying divine space.
5. Protestantism: Corrective, Yet Incomplete
The Protestant Reformation rightly rejected the authority of church tradition to override Scripture. Sola Scripturareasserted the primacy of God’s Word.
Yet Protestantism largely retained Sunday sacredness, often justifying it through:
- tradition,
- resurrection symbolism,
- or ecclesial continuity.
In doing so, Protestant theology frequently critiqued Catholic authority without fully disentangling itself from its conclusions.
This created a lasting tension:
- the authority of Scripture affirmed,
- the practice of sacred time inherited.
As a result, Protestantism often applies stricter scrutiny to cultural practices (holidays, symbols) than to inherited ecclesial changes to divine law.
This inconsistency matters for readers sensitive to syncretism.
6. A Consistent Biblical Evaluation
When Scripture governs discernment consistently, several principles emerge clearly:
- God alone defines covenantal law (James 2:10–12).
- The Sabbath is commanded; Christmas and Easter are not.
- Cultural commemoration may vary; divine law may not.
- Syncretism concerns authority and allegiance, not mere symbolism.
Anthropological missiology operates where Scripture grants freedom.
Syncretism occurs where Scripture’s authority is displaced.
These are not interchangeable categories.
Conclusion: Discernment Anchored in Authority
True biblical discernment does not begin with suspicion of culture, but with clarity about authority.
Where God has spoken clearly, obedience is joyful and non-negotiable.
Where God has not commanded, freedom must be protected.
Where human authority substitutes for divine command, reform is required.
This distinction allows believers to:
- celebrate Christ’s incarnation and resurrection without fear,
- resist genuine syncretism without obsession,
- and honor both Scripture and the unity of Christ’s body.
Faithfulness is not measured by how much one rejects, but by whom one obeys.
TomNicholas.org 