What if individualism isn’t really the problem?
One of the many rewards of running our first Matthias Media USA conference last year was the time spent getting to know our hosts at Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington DC—including Jonathan Leeman, who runs the always interesting 9Marks blog, and pulls together their eJournal.
Like all the 9Marks guys, Jonathan is sharp as a tack, has a generous gospel heart, and is blessed with a clear-eyed sense of where the issues lie.
His thoroughly thought-provoking piece in the July/August edition of Modern Reformation is a case in point. Titled ‘Individualism's Not the Problem—Community's Not the Solution’, Jonathan's article examines the increasingly common mantra that the traditional evangelical gospel is too ‘individualistic’, and that we need a more communitarian, relational gospel for the disengaged postmodern self.
While acknowledging and applauding what the communitarians get right, Jonathan insightfully points out that the individualism, consumerism, radical scepticism and alienation of the modern person are symptoms of a deeper problem:
The problem with the modern self is not merely that it's “unrelated”. It's rebellious. Not just disengaged, but defiant. Not just independent, but insubordinate. Where Yahweh, the maker of heaven and earth, described himself to Moses as the self-defining, predicate-less “I AM” (ego sum in the Vulgate), the ground of all reality, Descartes' method effectively shoved Yahweh aside, making his existence (and God's!) a predicate of his own thinking mind (cogito ergo sum) ... Descartes' move, like Adam's, did not merely break a relationship; it broke God's law or Word. The implications are not merely personal, but judicial. It's not just a friend who is cast off; it's a Lord and Judge. The philosophical methods we associate with modernity and postmodernity, in a sense, whisper the same line whispered by the snake in Garden. What the shift from pre-modernity to modernity signified, really, was that this satanic whisper gained a moral and philosophical credibility in the so-called Christian West (even if it had always been believed and practiced). In other words, the Enlightenment did not bring us radical free agency and contractualism. Genesis 3 did. The Enlightenment legitimised it.
Jonathan then proceeds to show how the communitarian/relational emphasis, by often failing to appreciate the deeply theological roots of our modern predicament, ends up re-orienting our doctrine of sin, and of Christ's work, and of church, and ultimately of God. He concludes:
Loneliness is not the problem. A refusal to live on anyone else's terms is. Another way to put all this: we're not dealing with a relationship problem, but a worship problem.
The solution then is not community; it's repentance. The solution is in changing of heart and direction—in the individual! This repentance includes joining a community and making relationships. But it's joining a particular kind of community where self is no longer sovereign and where one is called to obedience to the church as an expression of obedience to God. It's the joining of a community where God's Word and the worship of God are supreme in everything.
It's definitely worth a read (and you can do it here by taking out Modern Reformation's free 30-day trial).
Does any of this resonate with anyone as much as it did with me?
Individualism and its most powerful contemporary ally, consumersim, are not the disease but they are a symptom and a constant temptation. We do our people well to point out their false promises of fulfilment and significance.
David,
Yes indeed. One of the more challenging aspects of Jonathan’s approach was to argue that the real solution to individualism was not simply an individualistic repentance, but repentance into a church—into the obedience and relationship and discipline that goes with committing yourself to a congregation.
This of course is one of the tunes that the 9Marks guys play often, but they do so for a good reason. In their context, and increasingly in ours here in Aus, church is seen as an optional extra for the Christian; something you consume and make use of (like any other useful service industry), but which is not essential, and might possibly be replaced or rendered redundant by other service providers who fill the same needs!
They aren’t ‘communitarians’ (in the sense that Jonathan critiques) but perhaps I could cheekily call them ‘high churchman’ (in the good sense of what phrase once meant in Anglicanism—having a very high view of the church and its role).
TP
No, this doesn’t resonate with me at all.
I reflect on the character of Jesus’ ministry (and Paul to a large extent also) being entirely relational and focussed in community living. His constant meal sharing, telling of stories to friends and groups, healing ministry, gathering of disciples, wisdom teaching and so on speaks strongly to me of the primacy of our relationships being an agent of ‘the kingdom of God’. On balance in the synoptics, I think there is far less material on personal santification issues than how the ‘kingdom of God’ is realised through our relational context.
Much of the authentic Pauline writings are less doctrinal creeds about personal sanctification, but more encouragement and exhortation about how to live in Christian community. Take the Corinthians as an example - he passionately exhorts them to overcome their differences…. chapter after chapter.
I’m not convinced the historical Jesus or Paul would support your conclusions about individual first, community second. I suspect that for them, certainly in the context of 1stC Palestine, the dualistic separation of individual from community is meaningless. This separation is a later western cultural development that was concurrently reflected in personalised/individualised theology and articles of faith.
Cheers.
Hi Stephen
Did you read Jonathan’s article? He’s not saying ‘individual first, community second’, and I hope that my brief extracts didn’t convey that impression.
He affirms that our lack of community and relationship is a problem (and its many unhelpful side-effects and byproducts). But he argues (and I think rightly) that the nasty secret of Enlightenment-driven, modernist individualism is sin—the declaration of individual autonomy from God. This is the root cause of our problems, and our modern lack of community, relationship and love is the consequence.
So he’s saying that the solution is not to address the symptom but the disease. And the repentance he’s talking about is not atomised and individualistic; it’s deeply tied up with church.
One of the reasons I like the article, in fact, was that he manages to keep the ‘individual’ and the ‘communal’ tied closely together, giving each their proper and due place (because as you say, you can’t really separate them in the end). His critique of the ‘communitarians’ is that by focusing too much on the symptom, and not thinking it through with sufficient theological rigour, they end up unhelpfully re-casting key biblical doctrines (like sin, Christ and salvation).
Hope that helps and clarifies.
TP
Hi Tony,
Yes, there is common ground on what we are both saying: that the atomisation of western secular society is occurring and is rooted in the cult of the individual, which springs forth from our broken humanity. We might use different language, but I think we agree on this.
A significant difference remains however, and perhaps I was a somewhat opaque in my previous post…apologies (I tend to write short, generalised posts rather than long detailed ones you have probably noticed) Setting ourselves right with God is enacted through our community living where the ‘Kingdom of God’ can break through and transform peoples lives. Individualism has no power to do this. I believe this is the model that Jesus sets before us. Re-reading the Last Supper story with this lense is most instructive.
Mediated salvation through the Church is something entirely different.
Reading 1Cor15 recently has also clarified this in my mind about Paul’s position on how ‘salvation’ is enacted, ie through community.
Cheers.
Commenting rules
If you would like your comment to be considered for publication, please observe the following rules:
Failure to adhere to these rules will result in your comment being quietly deleted.
If you want to give us feedback but don't want your comments to appear on the blog, DON'T use the form below. Instead, please send us an email or click on the button below.
Your Comment
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.