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