Wag the Dogma: Opinions, Truth, and Ecclesiolatry

As a self-styled "radical Christian," I find myself fighting what seems to me to be a theological/intellectual disease very deep and prevalent in our contemporary situation, including in the churches. This disease has its heart and origin in the denial, on the one hand, of a subject matter capable of defending itself against the constructive manipulations of ideologies, and on the other, of a subject capable of standing on its own intellectual feet against communitarian embeddedness.

This disease has two dominant forms. The first form insists that because there is no such subject matter and subject, the only solution is to defer absolutely to the opinion of an authoritarian source or some collection of authoritarian sources. The second form of this same disease insists that the solution is to defer to every opinion equally. And anyone who, like myself, refuses one of these solutions is always presumed to be accepting the other one.

It is rather like trying to defend oneself against two tribes of zombies. One tribe angrily yells at you "GIVE ME YOUR BRAINS NOW!" The other asks, pleads, and manipulates, saying, in effect, "If you are a nice person and want to avoid having your brains devoured by the first tribe, just let each of us take a little nibble. If you do not, we will be very hurt and disappointed with you."

In the churches today, one constantly encounters pleas to be "humble" by giving up one's own view and going along with everyone else. No charge is considered more damning than that of "individualism." Individualism is criticized as being "modern," "western," etc. In direct opposition to this, radical Christianity, as I conceive it, is irreducibly individualistic.

First, let's define the term. "Individualism" as I define it does not mean selfishness, a refusal to be in community with others, or the like. Rather, it is a way of being in community, of being in relation to others, and of responsibly acting with and toward one's neighbors. It means being a self, a definite locus of thought and activity. Additionally, it is more of a prescriptive than a descriptive idea. I do not doubt that, as a matter of descriptive fact, everyone finds him- or herself in a community or a nexus of overlapping communities, which bring with them all kinds of assumptions, biases, and so on, not all of which we can resist perfectly, or even be clearly aware of. But a person ought to work to own up to his or her own thoughts and take responsibility for them. In fact, everyone is responsible, in the sense of morally or ethically culpable, for what he or she thinks, regardless of where the idea comes from. At least to an extent, and a significant one at that, taking responsibility for one's own thoughts is possible. That is what I mean by "individualism."

It is my view that, contrary to popular opinion, this kind of individualism is prevalent in the Bible, especially in the New Testament. It is the corrolary of the move, apparent especially in the Apostle Paul's letters, against settled communitarian distinctions that would divide the Church or order it hierarchically. This is how I read the famous "neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free" from Galatians.

This kind of individualism means that each person is responsible for his or her own faith. By no means do I intend here to downplay the role of the Holy Spirit; in fact, this role dovetails nicely with individualism. Because we believe by an act of God in our hearts, we are never bound directly to, nor dependent upon, anyone else for our faith.

Finally, this kind of individualism does not contradict, but actually supports socialist, even communist collectivism. It is because we, as individuals, have our own thoughts, that when our common thoughts agree, we can act in egalitarian unity.

Ecclesiologically, this means that our churches ought to embody this kind of individualist collectivism. We come together, as the Gospel of Matthew puts it, in Jesus' name. In my view, that does not mean we use the name of Jesus as a mere word, void of definitive reference, waiting to be filled in by our opinions. Rather, "in Jesus' name" means according to the truth of God's act and being in the irreducible particularity of the human life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. In other words, it is our common idea, which each person holds individually, that brings the Church together.

The usual assumption today is quite different. It is often assumed that whenever people are together in an ecclesiological institution, they are duty-bound to hold onto some kind of unity no matter what happens, and no matter how superficial this unity turns out to be. Strangely, perhaps, this idea seems more prevalent in the so-called "left wing" of denominations more than the right wing. But in the final analysis, this move is inherently right wing.

Therefore our determination is to be individuals, not so that we can avoid collective activity, but so that our collective activity, when it happens, will not be superficial but deep and authentic. Doctrine, or ideas, should lead here, not unity for its own sake. Otherwise, the tail is wagging the dogma.