There are three ways to reform bad religion. These methods of reform may be described as modernization, restoration, and liberalization.
Modernization, in a religious context, is to discard exterior traditions while keeping the original, internal content and intent of the moral code. It is to change the outer forms of our communication and practice while still holding to the timeless inner truths they are meant to communicate. Modernism introduces much needed cultural relevance and modern means of communication (both language and technology) by which to deliver timeless, objective truths. While liturgy and tradition are of some value, in and of themselves they are not sacrosanct to a healthy faith (sacraments excluded), and may be abandoned in order to convey the timeless truths they represent.
Restoration addresses the reform of the internals of a faith. Restoration is not so much concerned with outer practices, but rather the internal, timeless truths that have been abandoned or warped by liberalism, fundamentalism, or any other kind of -ism that skews the balance of truth, returning to the original foundation of the faith. Of course, restoration only makes sense if the original foundation was sound in the first place.
Liberalization also addresses the inner truths of faith. Liberalism, however, discards or dilutes the content and/or intent of the original moral code for a new moral code that is usually less strict. And while liberalization is often accompanied by modernization or restoration, it differs in that it modifies the truths considered foundational to a religion. Liberalism rejects foundational objective truths by replacing them with “modern” truths, usually based in subjective morality, thereby throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
One note on liberalism’s opposite analog, fundamentalism. Fundamentalism can skew both the outer and inner expressions of faith – it can prescribe or prohibit outward forms, and it can also warp the inner truths of faith by making them harsh, not balancing truth with love, and misapplying truth in hurtful ways.
Here are some examples of modernization, restoration, and liberalization.
Table of Contents
Modernization – Rock and Roll Worship
One sign of true spiritual awakening is the appearance of modern, lively worship music. This occurs because both the churched and unchurched begin to have their own experience with God, and rather than expressing themselves in cliched and formal religion, begin to extemporaneously express their hearts to God in language and music that is natural to them. It is especially pronounced when the unchurched begin to experience God because they are unfamiliar with church tradition, so they use the language of modernity. This was seen during the early days of the Salvation Army, whose use of band instruments was frowned upon by church traditionalists, and happened again during the Jesus Movement of the late 60’s and 70’s, which gave birth to contemporary christian music and contemporary, rock and roll worship.
Restoration – Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation
The most obvious historical example of restoration is the Protestant movement, often called the Reformation. Its main contribution was the restoration of foundational theological truths that had been obscured or contradicted by the corrupt doctrine and leaders of the Catholic Church. As a true restoration movement, reformers called for a return to foundational truths, which were often summarized as “the Five Solas,” sola meaning “only.”
Liberalization – Acceptance of Homosexuality as Normative
Christian scripture and tradition have steadfastly classified homosexuality as a perversion of nature and a sin. Modern theologians, however, in the name of reform, have called this an outdated, perhaps even cultural taboo that has nothing to do with objective morality. However, this can not be considered modernization because it deals with the internal truths of the faith, not the externals. Neither can it be considered restoration because the founding documents of Christianity, namely the bible, clearly condemn homosexuality, so returning to them will not produce a more liberal doctrine of homosexuality. If you move to a more liberal view of homosexuality, you can not claim fidelity to the foundational teachings – you must replace them.
Reformation and Islam
As I mentioned previously, Salman Rushdie has called for a reformation of Islam. But which of the three types is he calling for? It appears that he is calling for modernization and liberalization. He can not really call for restoration, because if one returns to the foundational teachings of the Koran, one gets jihad and murder in the name of God. But that is a longer discussion.
Interesting, good points. As far as modernization is concerned, I fear that we may throw the baby out with the bath water. While I agree that we shouldn't be wedded to style, there is something transcendant and sometimes awe-inspiring about liturgy and "traditional" church (consider being in a cathedral vs. a modern church – in a cathedral, I often feel like I'm in a different place).
Traditionalism with "heart-religion" can be very meaningful and even transforming. It can give you a sense that you're part of something timeless and beyond yourself. Traditionalism without it is basically crap, as Christ more or less stated when he berated the Pharisees.
Good post seeker and good comments atypical.
I find myself more and more annoyed with the change for the sake of change movement, who want to remove hymns and add the latest praise chorus just because one is new and the other is old.
I love to sing praise songs. I love contemporary Christian music. I love Christian rap and rock. But I also love singing How Great Thou Art and It is Well With My Soul.
We must find a way to modernize without getting rid of everything that is not "new."
As a spawn of the charismatic movement, I unfortunately picked up some disdain for traditional church. In fact, even till now, my retort to traditionalists is "I don't mind singing hymns during Christian history month, but the rest of the year, we should sing stuff that comes from a living faith, not those who had faith 200 years ago."
Now, this is not exactly kind, but it does point up one important thing – we should have a current relationship with God that produces song, not just a sentimental attachment to the past spirituality that mimics the real thing.
Also, though I agree that cathedrals and such are kind of awe inspiring, again, they, and the priesthoods that usually inhabit them, speak doctrinally of the Old Testament. God lives in me, not in a place, and I don't need a priest as a go-between twixt me and God – that's why John says:
"To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen. "
All believers are considered "priests" because we can now go directly go God.
Now that I've fired up the traditionalists, let me say that we should definitely study, honor, and emulate the great believers from our past, and we should employ tradition to remind us of the greatness of God in history, and of the major tenets of the faith. Ritual and tradition are invaluable in passing on values to the next generation.
However, it is very easy to mistake and replace tradition for a living relationship with God. This is why we should interrupt, even offend traditional sensibilities reguarly to make sure we are living for God and not religion.
And as to Cathedrals, I think that they do inspire awe and create a presence that promotes meditation, reflection and devotion. However, there is a risk there also that we should be aware of – they are just silly buildings, not holy relics – things that point to God, but not valuable in themselves. I think large buildlings can speak of the beauty and character of God, but does that mean that the church that meets in the strip mall is saying that God is cheap? Not.
Tradition and liturgy definitely have value. But I believe that, due to their risks, they should be less than half of our corporate experience of worship or teaching, lest we slip into a historical faith instead of a living one. Not that contemporary worship is any more spiritual – some might argue that the lyrics are less inspired and deep than the hymns. But at least, let's sprice up the melodies of these old hymns so that we don't feel like we're in a museum of the Christian faith. Singing them the old way is nice once in a while, but not as a weekly habit.
"Liberalism rejects foundational objective truths by replacing them with "modern" truths, usually based in subjective morality, thereby throwing out the baby with the bathwater. "
We could go through many old religious moral systems and show how "liberalization" only led to improvement. Sati, for example, bride burning in Hinduism, got "liberalized" to where it is no longer OK to view women as such. The people that created Sati did it subjectively and those who threw it out did it subjectively. There is no way around subjectivity. Your assumption that the ancients all learned from objective gods is a myth. Sure, you may agree with my Sati example, but you think that Yahweh's command to kill and adulterous woman is "objective", right?
You are right, Islam needs to liberalize.
I agree with you – but I'm not sure if these were liberalization of core tenets of these faiths (which, if so, would mean that the core tenets of the faith are erroneous), or if these were just outward perversions of the faith. In the latter case, it would be a restoration, not liberalization.
However, as a Christian, I am not surprised that other faiths have errors at their core. I do not assume that the ancients all learned from objective Gods, sorry I did not make that clear – I think that Judaism and Christianity learned from an objective God, while the others only did so through nature and common wisdom – their 'revealed' teachings, I would argue, are erroneous – things like reincarnation, the inferiority of women, their soteriologies (doctrines of salvation).
Islam needs to liberalize, but as I've pointed out, there will always be Islamic terrorists because the founder taught and acted like one.
Thanks for your comment.
You do know that the Jewish law contains similar horrendous moral codes, right? Or does your apologetics account for them all?
There are still Christians and Jews with horrendous moral codes in spite of reformations because, as you say, "the founder(s) taught and acted like one."