തളിരുകൾ

27 September 2018

Regathering the Church to a Newer Innocence?


Just as a person, a society and a community also face changes, and undergo changes. There is a struggle to survive, but the real struggle is how well one adapts to the change, often a rapid change. Though it is natural for us to try to maintain a system as it is, the preservation is really possible only if we are ready to adapt ourselves to a new situation. It is also essential to attend to the wear and tear with sufficient care. The fittest is not the mightiest, but the fittest is the one adapts in the best manner.
As we place ourselves into the new situation, the first thing to do at the face of a challenging change is to develop an openness with prudent evaluation, instead of a blind resistance. It is normal to struggle even in the process of adaptation, but here the resistance is productive, open to change, and learning the content of the change faced i.e. what a change actually involves.
A community that feels of itself as the mightiest might proceed to have a self-defence, resist or totally neglect the change, and get neglected in the course of time. The resistance is because we may be overconfident that we might withstand the change, or we want to tie ourselves in our comfort-zones. Sometime the comfort-zone may be formed by our views or given definitions. We might give selective attention only to such information that confirm our preferred views. We might also engage in unfruitful arguments to defend our views, because we may be identifying ourselves or the system to that preferred view, and think that the whole structure stands on this particular view. When we lack a wider vision and its value we might feel that the change is threatening the very identity of the system, society or the community. The sense of threat will find every reason to see only undesirable consequences.  As part of a blind defence we go on self-justifying as though everything is good and everyone is happy. It is self-destructive. The sense of threat may also alarm us about a loss of power, autonomy and control. 
As a body, the Church also faces changes, sociopolitical, economic and ideological changes. The cultural changes that have come in recent centuries have influenced basic structures of society, family, and communities. It does the same to the church and asks for response. A reflection needs to begin with how well we were able to understand the changes, more than moral judgements how the changes are going out of the conventional ways. It is not wise to be blind to the social and political phenomena around. They raise challenges, but not necessarily always threat, it could be a call too. Our difficulty is to allow a change from what is familiar, and so convenient.
If we want to place the church in a new situation we also need to develop an openness with prudent evaluation and prayerfulness. It is not wise to apply an eternality to the patterns of approach and structures of the church. They must undergo change, and these changes do not essentially deform the church. But, we have our definitions of our belief systems, customs, power structure etc. which are playing a role of comfort-zone. Many find comfort in being in the same, and train others to find comfort in them by identifying themselves and the church itself to those definitions and customs. If we are in this condition we might prefer to give attention only to those things which go in line with the elements we have identified to be the essence of faith as there are resistance and conflicts in the society when a change happens. Without even understanding what the change calls for, we might begin to defend our traditions, customs, and practices unfortunately at times without acknowledging that these themselves had developed as a part of change.
Wisdom must guide us to discern whether the desired change, and the modalities we use to bring this change about will result a creative reformation or demolition. Wisdom also calls for prudent ways of restructuring the church; not only because the changes in time demand it but they call the church to be true to itself. Change has to happen in our approaches and structures, but without forgetting that the building blocks are we, the persons. We can risk the system not the persons, the system is for the well-being of persons within the community. The elements above we have feared to lose are in fact means to support the system, not the ends, whether they were belief systems, customs, structures, power, authority etc. Perhaps they were wrongly identified as the end, or the system became too much dependent on the means losing the sight of real ends. Certain pattern of customs or beliefs in a particular time of history may have also been wrongly recognised as the very essence of the system. It can also happen that we might appreciate novelty and creativity without purpose. Most of these means tie us in good sensations but not letting us reach the end.
Many may be ready to invest human and monetary resources too, but only wisdom, discernment, and prayerfulness will help us to identifying faithful builders and fruitful plans, failure of which may result in the destruction of the very nature of the church. Many plans and offers may be available, modern, authentic, spiritual, traditional, relevant, appealing, …yet they cannot do the re-forming because they are within their narrow frames. But the humanity of goodness and compassion, the people of good will, regather our scattered conscience, thus a new innocence.
Does society find the church to be the symbol of punishable conscience of the society itself?
Has the church been blind and unaffected by the changes, remained in self-justification, condemning all ‘sinners’? Have those righteous claims shown itself hypocritical? Being humbled, the church may regather itself to a newer form of innocence by the help of God.
Similarly, does the society act a self-righteous role, condemning the church to be the worst sinner? The condemnation of evil is justifiable, but it hopefully touches the conscience of the society too, in dealing with evils and corruptions. Otherwise the righteous claim of the society that condemned the church will prove itself hypocritical.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Most Viewed

Featured post

Mark of the Covenant

The owner would make a mark on his animals as a sign that it belonged to him. Many groups of people also had certain marks of them as an ide...