Wednesday, August 3, 2016

Make the familiar strange

To romanticize the world is to make us aware of the magic, mystery and wonder of the world; it is to educate the senses to see the ordinary as extraordinary, the familiar as strange, the mundane as sacred, the finite as infinite.[1]

This philosophy has been used to inspire creativity in business by a number of speakers and authors.
One of the well-known aphorisms in the field of creativity consulting is to "make the familiar strange." When we’re overly familiar with something, we have all kinds of assumptions, biases, and preconceived notions that inhibit us from discovering new and potentially exciting ways of looking at it. By making the familiar strange, we can often once again look at that something with a fresh, new, almost naive perspective and open ourselves to the possibility of making some truly unique discovery.[2]
Government corporations and their unions are woefully inefficient and steeped in tradition. Many large corporations are sluggish and unwieldly; these companies seldom take remedial action until shareholder value plummets. In most cases the bottom line has indicated the ineffectiveness of the company for considerable time before any action is taken. Corporations have to do something to stop the bleeding, or they will go out of business. One major institution that has failed miserably in virtually every department, other than the Post Office, is the Church. I can’t think of any institution that needs to review it output and purpose more than the Church. Traditions are like barnacles on a ship; those tiny creatures can make a ship use up to 40 percent more fuel. The area they cover may be small compared to the size of the ship, but their collective mass causes considerable drag on the hull. Likewise, the accumulation of traditions over time has bogged the Church down to where it is ineffective and irrelevant.

Against all odds, Christianity in its early years grew exponentially. Established religions were opposed to and persecuted the disciples of Jesus; Rome viewed the upstart religion as atheistic, and a social pariah. Yet in a climate of adversity belief and commitment to Christ was established world-wide within a relatively short time. For somewhere around three hundred years independent congregations of Christians existed in countries, cities, towns and villages. Until the time of Constantine congregations were autonomous and self-sufficient. Disparities existed in structure and doctrine among congregations to the point that Constantine deemed it necessary to convene the council of Nicaea. The purpose of the council was to impose unity upon the disparate communities of Christians. Under Constantine’s direction the various congregations were brought under the control of bishops residing in Rome. The structure adopted by the newly organized body was that of the Roman Empire; thus the Roman Church came into being. Over the centuries reformers have tweaked doctrines with very little substantial changes resulting to the structure or doctrines of the Church. Every denomination and Christian organization has roots firmly embedded in the Church of Rome. Reformers, ancient and modern, have all taken the traditional base – the Roman Church, as the model, and from there moved in some direction more appealing to themselves. Some of the restorers worked on the assumption that the New Testament Church had to be reinstated. Even the restorers used the base of the Roman Church, stripping from it doctrines not found in the New Testament and inserting what they called biblical processes. Nobody that I know of followed the philosophy of Novalis, or was brave enough to consider that the Church may not be a New Testament entity, but an unwieldly, cumbersome design of man.

Establishing Churches and planting Churches, are not remotely related to the growth of discipleship in the first century, “…those who had been scattered went about preaching the word.”[3] Christianity is said to have reached Briton before the death of Claudius in 54 CE. It was not an organized Church sending out missionaries, but individuals, possibly a Roman soldier, merchants, or travelers. If it were possible to forget the traditions we’ve accepted as truths, if we could step away from any bias we have, or if we could free our minds from presuppositions; then with an open mind seek the kingdom of God, what would being a disciple look like? It took the emperor of Rome to force scattered independent congregations into an ungodly organization. Stripped of tradition, no one would use the word Church since it is not in the original language of the New Testament. If one studied with an open mind, there would be no pope, there is only Jesus. If without bias we read the gospels, we would want to be just believers, disciples of Jesus not members of a Church.
Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.[4]
Are we able to accept the raw simplicity of John’s writing? Is it actually possible that if the only scripture available to us was the gospel of John, that we could believe in Jesus and have life in his name? How many conditions would yet apply? What caveats need to be considered? What Church doctrines or practices supersede the written word?

Therefore they said to Him, "What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?" Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent."[5]




[1] Baron Georg Philipp Friedrich von Hardenberg, pseudonym – Novalis
[2] 99% Inspiration, by Bryan Mattimore p. 72
[3] Act 8:4 
[4] Joh 20:30, 31 
[5] Joh 6:28, 29

No comments:

Post a Comment

Is What we Believe Tradition or God's Word?

  A sampling of comments and thoughts to think about when considering what we believe: A lie told often enough becomes the truth.” “In tod...