ABSTRACT
In the context of theological approaches to syncretism, Kamstra pays special attention to the analysis of Hendrik Kraemer. This chapter considers that Kamstra's analysis of the roots of syncretism does suffer from this defect but it might have been better to free his analysis from the strains set up by the fact that it was conceived in reaction to Kraemer's theologically conditioned view. Nor is the relevance of this analysis restricted to the Buddhist-Shinto situation. The transpositions referred to by van der Leeuw and by Kamstra all display this character of ambiguity. To take ambiguity as the main characteristic of syncretism is consistent also with Kamstra's view that it stems from humankind's very nature in the sense that each person is a limited being unable to grasp the revelation of the divine or the ultimate truth except in so far as this or these are refracted in terms of his or her own situation.
