Dear editor,

I’d like to thank Leah Bjornson for her article “Religious traditions should be adapted globally”, because of how forthrightly it sets out the challenge of religious tradition in the face of modern society.

However, I believe she approaches the problem backwards by taking modernity as the normative standard. The whole point of religious tradition is to oblige us to a certain way of life which may or may not be completely compatible with modern, “global” lifestyles. There certainly is room for adaptation and reinterpretation, but the danger behind such calls is that by adaptation, a tradition risks losing its fundamental meaning.

The traditions do not exist merely for themselves, as Leah seems to suggest, but are meant to perfect human behaviour for the sake of union with the divine. Religious traditions, therefore, do not exist simply as cultural artifacts, but as the direct means by which religious faith itself is propagated within a community; it is the means by which society itself is changed.

Religion summons humanity towards something greater than itself, and so it demands that society conform to its standard. This is in complete contrast to what modernity would have us believe — that individual fulfillment and self-actualization are the highest ideals we ought to uphold.

Rather, religion says that humanity is incomplete without contact or discourse with the sacred. The sacred is not a vague force, but the real foundation of order and meaning for the whole universe, known not merely in religious texts, but through the proper exercise of human reason. Of course such ideas are inconvenient for those steeped in the ideals of modernity, which is probably why calls to adapt religion to contemporary society are so prevalent.

Sincerely,

Juan Tolentino
SFU Alumnus