First off, thanks to you all for the quality of discussion in this thread - it speaks to the faith in Jesus and the intelligence that you all bring. Please accept my compliment because I believe both faith and reason to be gifts designed by God, and although we may get frustrated with some of the discussion here from time to time, it's topics like these that reflect on why CyB started.
In his book Rediscovering Catholicism Matthew Kelly refers to the three great deceptive philosophies of the modern age – Individualism, Minimalism and Materialism
He says Individualism as one of the most disturbing philosophies of our modern age. It is characterised by a “what’s in it for me” mentality.
In Christianity it is a privatisation of Christianity. It’s egocentric not Christcentric It reduces Christianity to a “personal relationship with Christ”. It’s about “my personal interpretation of scripture”. Salvation is just something personal not something we strive for in conjunction with others. Yes I do think that this philosophy has infected many strands of Christianity.
I would agree with all three of those deceptive philosophies. I'd even go so far as to say that where there is one, there is generally another.
It's interesting that this is affecting both Catholics and Protestants. In the Protestant world, you see this hidden behind no creed statements and other catchphrases that are essentially code words for "it's my interpretation or the highway!" In Catholicism this seems to result in cultural Catholics or nominal Catholics who may attend church (even often attend church), but their views do not line up with the Magesterium on some or many issues.
It's definitely egocentric. I don't believe that it necessarily emerged out of people simply wanting to be egocentric, but I see history as painting a picture of very godly men and women who wanted to reform (both within and without the original church), but that these simple reforms were taken to the extreme. In the Protestant world, the Reformers kept a number of traditions, it was not a total rebellion against all tradition whatsoever, but specifically against what the Reformers viewed as extra-Biblical within the church. The Catholics have Vatican II as an example of the same thing occurring, though it stayed within the denomination/church versus splitting.
Christianity's essence is individuality; there is no such thing as corporate salvation.
Well, you are correct in one sense, but what you state also differs from individualism where it revolves around who I am and what I believe. Most commonly, this is couched in the language of being led by the Spirit or experiencing some other divine revelation. We have members on this very forum that claim divine instruction in virtually every single post they make, as if God spoke to them this AM, and then proceed to come up with some vague metaphor or doctrine that has never been taught as truth anywhere.
Therefore, I am not saved because my wife is saved, for instance, but at the same time, the Bible does say:
They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household." (Acts 16:31)
I've had this discussion with family and friends, but God designed Christianity to be very organic. Rarely do we see Pauls struck down on the Damascus Road. Often, do we see men and women come to Christ because of the lives of the saints (all Christians) or the preaching/teaching thereof. God designed it that way, and thus we have the Great Commission. Christianity spreads through activity, and that means fellowship with other believers and other people. That's why households tended to get saved, because if the head (or even a lower person within the family) was saved, then his example would shine to the remainder of the family. That's why we have churches and assemblies of Christians, be it a house church or mega-church.
Unfortunately, individualism totally ignores the body metaphor and it let's the hand think he doesn't need the foot or anything else. It tends to create a very militant faith in the Conservative realm, and you see it explode when he or she comes on a forum like CyB where ideas are challenged. People bristle when you don't agree, and then suddenly you're shouted down as not being saved and called a devil or demon (or two).
In our neoprotestant churches, everyone is his own church with his own doctrine. Preaches avoid substance lest they step on someone's private doctrine. But, the Catholic Church was growing increasingly away from the Bible and it was just a matter of time before it would crack. And, crack and split it did, giving birth to the Protestant Reformation which in turn descended into our neoprotestantism.
I agree with much you say, but even the nobody but Jesus sentiment can be hijacked by individualism. (Certainly no suggestion that you are individualistic!) The problem is that the creeds and other forms of catechism and tools has been taken out of the way, and it's served only to accelerate the demise of Biblical Christianity. What you're describing is summed up in the "No Creed but the Bible" type churches and movements, yet these clearly span the spectrum and differ mightily in doctrine.
Jesus does need to be first and foremost, but that's a claim always made by every side.
interesting topic. i used to see the rise of individualism as a natural result of protestantism - then i looked further back in history. the black plague and the catholic churches inability to stop people from dying seems to a starting place. it led to the peasant riots and the rennasiance, which led to protestantism and the enlightenment. the rise of secularism and modernism where a natural result.
Yeah, I saw the same for a very short period of time. I think the rugged individualism goes back further, but it really flourished with the dawn of the Enlightenment. It may have taken a little longer to root in the Catholic Church, but both churches now deal with it and it's a plague. In many ways it was a response to the Catholic Church's inability to provide, both during sickness and then the Papal indulgences, etc., but I believe it still goes even deeper than that.
Whilst Christ calls individuals, yet we are referred to as living stones that make up the temple of God. Paul the apostle said, that there is one spirit but diversity of function. He used the example of a body to imply that whilst their are individual persons(functions) we are in need of working together in harmony. The individual that is called of Christ isn't called to be a maverick or a co-dependant but rather constructively work together to build up the whole- interdependent if you will. This allows for individuality and corporate function as well.
Generally well stated and I don't have much of anything to add, with the exception of my respect for the post.
On a personal level - When deciding to move from a Baptist community into a Pentecostal environment, I had noted a similar pattern which seems to filter right across the denominational board. Pastors and leaders do not necessarily hold their position for more than one to two years before moving on to another congregation or another Church, which does not bring a sense of stability to a church family in general. Since they are capable of making such decisions based on Church policy or for opportunity to minister to a larger congregation, it is not surprising that their parishioners tend to follow suit. Commitment is a double-sided coin.
Excellent thought. We have the Methodists here who operate on a circuit where Pastors must move every so many years. I'm not against a Pastor being in a location for his life if he preaches the Word of God and remains faithful. Just like with the congregation, there are so many flavors. If things get a little difficult, you can move to the next one which might offer a more receptive audience.
Extremely important observation. To me personally it's quite distressing to see such things. The church of Christ as I understand it, is a theocracy and NOT a democracy.
Yes, yes. This is a western-world issue, but we've equated democracy with Godly government. Christ is the head. You could make a very strong case for a theocratic dictatorship, but that just sounds so anti-freedom if you don't know better. (I Corinthians 7:22)
The Baptist Church are more democratic in their processes than the Pentecostal Church, as members have more say in the running of their local Church and they are able to vote to have their pastor removed from office if they so desire....
Members of the Pentecostal Church cannot, as they are more theocratic in their modus operandi. Pentecostal Pastors are accountable to an executive council. This makes grievances difficult to deal with If they arise between Pastor and another member. Such grievances can only be addressed at a higher level. If the Pastor chooses not to bring these grievances before the council, then they are never dealt with.
I saw an illustration of your statement just last week. I watched an SBC (Southern Baptist Church - largest US Protestant denom) Pastor get up at a Denomination Association meeting and preach that the deity was fully emptied from Jesus before he died. Folks that's called Arianism, and all three major strands of the Christianity faith (Protestants, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox) all agree on this issue, yet this man will return to his country church and continue to preach out-and-out heresy. In contrast, one man spoke up that he used a "prayer language" only to pray and talk to God, and he was subsequently fired from his position within the Association.
Now if I am looking at issues, and suppose I don't believe in tongues the way some interpret them (not saying either way, let's not debate that here). Still, which sin is the more egregious? I must reply the former, because what a man prays to God is between him and God, but this other man is teaching a congregation.
In the SBC, what is taught from church to church - in the very same denomination - can teach whatever they will. Obviously, if it gets bad enough and enough people hear about it, they can and are kicked out, but still, that's a major heresy that goes unchallenged. I am a Baptist for a reason, but this greatly frustrates me.
SBC churches (not all!) definitely are infected with individualism. I used to think it was a symptom of just church government, but I think there is more at stake and church government is just a piece of the whole. I do not intend to demean any Pentecostal churches, because I've seen some much more faithful and doctrinally correct than that SBC church, for sure.
