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]
No comments:
Post a Comment