This should be a great series. I don’t think that individualism is a response though – a defensive action or a way of rebelling.
Individualism and self-centered interests as primary focus are pervasive in our culture. This is the normal mode of operation. In fact it seems viewed as naive or strange to sacrifice for a greater good. There is no greater good if it doesn’t benefit me and isn’t in my own self-interest. Lay down one’s life for another? forget it – we won’t even get cold or take the smaller portion for another.
This cripples the ability of churches and other organizations to move forward, because the even the church and the kingdom has no reality outside of the self who is thinking. I don’t hear many (any?) pastors these days casting a vision of God or kingdom. The vision is strictly why this is good for you and what you get out of it.
One experience that drove this home for me was taking the Willow Creek reveal survey a couple of years ago. Every question – even the questions about outreach and service – were centered on “me.” I paraphrase because I don’t remember word-for-word but questions were framed “I like the service opportunities in my church because they help me get closer to God.” or “The social action opportunities in our church provide a good opportunity for my family to learn together.” Not a blasted thing about kingdom vision and why we actually engage in kingdom action, which I hope has more to do with God and others than my personal satisfaction and growth.

RJS-
But Reveal was not done in a vacuum and used as an emphasis for individualism. It was developed because of the studies that showed people felt stuck in their spiritual growth, so the questions would naturally be asking about the individual.
It was not trying to indicate that the wants of the individual were the goal. In fact, the people at the focus of the concern (already believers, but hitting a plateau), probably already had at least a basic understanding of love God, love others. However, people will have even a deeper appreciation for love God, love others as they grow spiritually. That’s all Willow was trying to tackle.

Rick, yes, but not completely. The later versions of the Reveal questions became more oriented toward the church; the questions themselves had an individualism at their heart in the earliest versions.

I cannot find the quote, but remember once reading a paragraph or two by C.S. Lewis wherein he describes the common Christian experience. We arrive at a worship service, hear the story told in scripture and the creeds for an hour, and then march back out into a world for an entire week, (the world in which we work, play, live, eat, and sleep) in which that story is not so often directly denied, but is routinely ignored. Other stories are told, and in fact, in order to successfully work, play, live, eat, and sleep in that world, we must often act is if those other stories are the true ones… and it is the storytellers who are the combatants in this particular confrontation.
The above is from a post on my blog, I thought it would have been an appropriate Lewis quote to add to the comments, but of course I can’t find the quote, was just wondering if anyone had read it and remembered where it was at. (If I remember correctly he was talking specifically about literature and how Christians should write it…)

This is a good post about what sounds as if it’s a good book. I have become more sensitized to individualism in the church (and I’m glad the authors of this book, apparently, also see the good in individualism: What we are fighting is not individualism but individualism-run-rampant.)
But my big question is: We are good at this blog at identifying the rampant-individualism problem. How do we solve it?
Yesterday, I went to a new church– an evangelical Friends church. It was in many ways an excellent experience, but I couldn’t help noticing that a song we sang over and over ended with “Lord … you are wonderful to me.” The last word was me! Why not us? We were a group, ostensibly at least, trying to become “gathered” into communion with each other through Christ, in the Quaker tradition, yet here we were, all together, singing about “me.” After the service, I was introduced to the pastor, and admittedly, he had another service coming and was obviously distracted, but it was clear I had no reality to him at all. That was my experience throughout the morning–everyone seemed so bent on getting to the next activity–so bent on their own agendas–that there was no time for stopping to acknowledge the humanity of a newcomer. I’m not as critical of that as I sound, as after all why should my individualism be so important, but it struck me as connected to the emphasis in the service on “me.” As I know the church intends to be welcoming, and that it is a place full of spirit-filled Christians, I get back to the issue of “creating a world where it’s easier to put others first.”
I know if I ran a church, I would not sing songs with me and I in the lyrics (even if I had to change lyrics from Me to US) and I would I would try to cultivate small habits of putting others first.

Rick,
I’m not trying to pick on Willow or any other group … I think that this issue runs deep in our psyche and is difficult to see and uproot. There is this sense that one is a sucker and a twit if one actually acts with an emphasis on the greater good – not so much within our church as within our culture at large.
I see it much more severely in work situations – to the extent that I sometimes think a “christian” upbringing is antithetical to success because it does not instill the right selfish value system.

One help against individualism in the language of the worship community: talk about and focus on the big issues of kingdom and the world to come and the supremacy of God. Let that language permeate the teaching, the instruction that comes through liturgy and singing, and in conversations.
The longer you are away from the therapeutic style of worship and language the easier it gets.
The I and the WE are important. They find their proper place in a world besotted with God, the Divine Presence here and now, and the world to come.

RJS-
I don’t disagree with your concerns and warnings. I too have had problems with some of the expressions in songs as mentioned by Diane and Derek.
However, I think there needs to be balance overall (basic example: allow for both “me” and “we” songs).
It still comes down to the fact that we are individuals, each made in God’s image. Before we can begin to talk about a church as a whole, we still need to recognize that it starts with God impacting individual hearts. From there, we can begin, and continue, to see ourselves in relation to Him, others, His creation, and His Kingdom.
Let us not battle “individualism” by ignoring each, unique “individual”; nor let us criticize churches that may addressing the need to encourage spiritual growth by recognizing and equipping individuals.
It should not stop with the individual, but it does start there. Again, balance.

Rick,
Is the emphasis on the individual personal satisfaction and comfort – or is the emphasis on the individual transformation and sacrifice and servanthood?
Yes – I think that there is a healthy dose of what is good for the individual in our faith, but it is a revolutionary kind of good, often not what our society views as good – and this is where the conflict with worldview individualism really hits hard. And yes, there is an important element of “me” – but to bring me into the kingdom of God, not a self-centered “me.”

Rick,
I agree with you on the issue of balance, and that we are, as Scot would say, eikons created individually in God’s image. But we are to be gathered together as a body. Also, if we are addressing an imbalance, which is too much emphasis on the ME, a counter-balance would ask us to perhaps overweight the US for the purposes of righting the scales. I imagine a set of scales with the little “me” circle weighed to the ground, while the “us” circle dangles up in the air like the top seat of a seesaw.

What do you all think about the idea that protestants have rejected a central authority for an individual authority of self? I understand that we certainly don’t think we’re doing this. We’d claim we’ve moved to the authority of Scripture. The problem is that we can each have varying view of that scripture, right? If I don’t like church “X”, I choose church “Y”. If I don’t like traditional church liturgy, I go to a seeker church. If the pastor leaves and the new pastor is not to my liking, I simply find a new church. One persons fight for the inclusion of gay pastors/priests is another person excuse to leave that very denomination. We seem to be able to find a church that best accommodates our own “individual” interests, tastes, etc. I’m not suggesting that “individualism” will not be a problem if we all just convert to RCC or EO, but the combination of individualism in American culture + protestantism + changing ideas of community seem to me to be a petri dish for Individualism.

RJS,
I agree that the Christian upbringing can be antithetical to success in the work world as the world defines “success.” I struggled with this in raising children: It always seemed that the grabby, aggressive children of pushy, aggressive parents got the rewards, the seats in the GT classes, the special chances to go to science fairs, etc, and I felt the injustice of it, but I decided in the end, that in my own soul I couldn’t bear to raise that kind of children or be that kind of parent.

RJS,
I agree that the Christian upbringing can be antithetical to success in the work world as the world defines “success.” I struggled with this in raising children: It always seemed that the grabby, aggressive children of pushy, aggressive parents got the rewards, the seats in the GT classes, the special chances to go to science fairs, etc, and I felt the injustice of it, but I decided in the end, that in my own soul I couldn’t bear to raise that kind of children or be that kind of parent.

This book sounds extremely relevant to our age and I’m glad it takes a “practioners” approach more than an apologists approach as this makes it more difficult to make it a theoretical discussion. It sounds like the American way of individualism is exposed for what it has at least become – a more virtuous form of narcissm.
The problem with individualism in the church is that most of us know better theologically so we have to cloak our individualism in more subtle and nuanced ways in order to hide or justify it. And if anyone does expose this we can always right them off as judgemental or taking the gospel to an extreme or out of context.
We do need to change the our language and we need the Spirit and the Word to change our hearts. Most of us are so miserable in this country because we are so self absorbed. The Good News of Jesus includes setting us free from the bondange of narcissism and individualism. Even as I write this I began to think about ME!!!
Yet in balance, me, my, and I are not always bad words but their emphasis needs to be more confessional and rightly ordered under the desire for God and for his kingdom. Ps. 63 is heavily “me” referenced but God is the center, the longing, the treasure, the heart’s desire.

RJS-
Clearly transformation is the goal, and that transformation includes a growing awareness (and strengthing from) sacrifice and servanthood. That transformation will translate into increasing fruit in the lives of individuals, which then strengthens the church body as a whole. I don’t think individual comfort was even on the radar for Willow/Reveal; but as Scot indicated, they apparently had to adjust its wording.
Diane-
I like your counter-balance thoughts, but we cannot do it to the negation of spiritual growth in the lives of people. This can backfire, which may have been part of the problem at Willow (and similar churches). If I recall correctly (someone correct me if I am wrong), many of the people that hit the plateau were active in the church (serving/sacrifice), but felt stunted in terms of spiritual growth.
The individual transformation causes a ripple effect, both in the life of the person and in the world around him/her.
We should emphasize being connected to the Vine both individually and corporately.

I don’t want to be nit-picky either, but a popular song sung by many every Sunday I imagine has a wonderful description of Jesus’ atoning death, yet it ends with “…you took the Fall and thought of ME above all.” Me. Thousands are singing that they and they alone were on Jesus’ mind as individuals when he died. Could it be true? I guess, but there is no Scriptural warrant for it. But John, you say, Paul wrote about a Jesus “who loved me and gave himself for me” (Gal 2:20). True. He did give himself for me, but he wasn’t THINKING only about me in that moment. That some twist Paul’s testimony into a cover for self-centered individualism that is rampant in USAmerican evangelicalism is unwarranted.

Petri dish of individualism- this is a very good ‘word picture’. It must though be a glass petri dish for a plastic one must be disposed of after one use. I was created to examine and test the very theories that I experiment with. Because I believe in developing your life philosophy deliberately, each ‘idea’ that I think about must pass the test of Scripture as I know it today. The teacher that I learned the most from said, “I am willing to change my mind about something if I get enough evidence to prove I may be wrong about it.” Faith is not static- back to the petri dish. Whatever is in your petri dish is growing- like it or not. A glass petri dish can be sterilized- whew! Yes, Andy, we have varying views of Scripture and we do need enough of our ‘owned’ ideas validated to feel love.

“the authors know the values of individualism: it acknowledges our freedom and responsibility, affirms our need to make a difference, and recognizes the strength of what we choose to believe.”
This is an important point that should be emphasized more. Because while individualism is indeed a problem, how we understand it, where it comes from, affects how we respond.
And for the most part, in Church history, the response to individuals has been to squash them as individuals in search of unity. Indeed, I think this might even be one of the dominant themes that has shaped Church history and theology. So much of almost every aspect of Church worship and government has been about gathering more and more authority in the face of growing disharmony. At times the authority can’t absorb anything more and it pops. In 1054, and with Luther, and with so many others since then.
The response to individualism has been to rid the individual, essentially, of his or her personhood–making them a cog in a variously well-run machine that does not recognize individuality. The priority of diversity–that reality that God makes us different, gives us different gifts and passions, and insists on distinction in the formation of community–is lost.
So, the question for me is not how we can stamp outindividualism, as I see the negative aspects as often symptoms of an unaddressed positive reality. The question is how we can shape our communities to embrace differences, incorporating as real, separate persons within our gathered body.
Churches have very little substantive response to separate persons besides assimilating them into the collective and pressing them into some narrow range of established programs. We de-personalize the congregation–see them as primarily serving to fill the collection plate–and then are shocked–shocked!–when they exhibit an interest in their own personal spirituality reality.
Yes, individualism is an issue, and can be partly addressed by dealing with the cultural assumptions, however, if we do not increasingly and substantive see this drive for individualism as an expression of Spirit endowed personhood and seek to acknowledge real diversity, then we’re going to continue to see negative expressions of a very Divinely inspired drive. This is why the Pentecostals found such an explosion–they offer at least some measure of personal identity and empowerment within a unified congregation.

Patrick O-
“Churches have very little substantive response to separate persons besides assimilating them into the collective and pressing them into some narrow range of established programs. We de-personalize the congregation–see them as primarily serving to fill the collection plate–and then are shocked–shocked!–when they exhibit an interest in their own personal spirituality reality.”
Yes. Exactly. Well said.

Songs about Jesus making me feel good instead of – use me God. Some friends who had spent 5 yrs in Ethiopia were shocked to hear that in churches because in Ethiopia it had been – use me God or how to serve God.

Applied Individualism- (my version)
Yesterday I met my neighbor while out for an evening walk/ bike ride. She was walking and I was riding my bike. She could hardly say hello before she burst out- “Thank you so much for the muffins. I haven’t had a chance to thank you for them. I had a test that was due and I had two funerals that week. It was a hard week for me.”
I, El, used my individual gift of ‘baking a great muffin’ and brought it to the neighbors on a day that I inquired as to their wellness. I have prayed many things for these neighbors and seen some things answered- some not yet- and what does my neighbor say when she sees me? “Thanks for the muffins!” So, what does your neighbor say about you?

“However, people will have even a deeper appreciation for love God, love others as they grow spiritually.”
This deeper appreciation also, I think, presses against the bounds of church order. People who grow in their spirituality, grow in their personal identity as participants in the mission of God.
Not giving room for persons (which is the theologically positive expression for different individuals in a unity) stifles every aspect of spiritual growth. The feet are bound, the hands tied, the soul is put into irons.
If not given space to grow, they nominalize, individualize, or just wander away. So, in not embracing an individuality in a positive way, churches are often losing the maturing Christians–with replacements coming in to fill the space, but often repeating the cycle. Of course, church leaders don’t feel this burn as it is these very leaders who have been given the space to exercise their individuality within a ministry setting.
So, those who shape the theology and practice tend to focus the blame on others who are not experiencing their own freedom within the unity of the body. What’s the problem with the rioters? “Let them eat cake.”
I might even go as far to say that not understanding diversity within the unity approaches a pneumatological heresy.

“If not given space to grow,…within a ministry setting.”
Why, Patrick O, this is a ‘paragraph comment’ I heartily agree with.
This describes precisely the ‘rhythm’ of the church I attended for the last 5 years or so.
Is there a ‘resolution’ for this malady?

I have added the book to my Amazon Wish List and look forward to getting it and reading along.
One aspect of individualism that I rarely hear discussed seriously is that it is a natural byproduct of increased technology. This is true of some of the other symptoms as well. The plain fact is, we live in a culture where we are FREE TO BE individualistic, consumeristic, and so on because of what our technology allows. We don’t choose to be this way in a vacuum. Our human nature and sinful nature does what we are allowed to do and expands the boundaries whenever technology allows us to do so.
So, is one part of the answer to “unplug”–to decide to live more rooted lives and deny ourselves the freedom of mobility which often leads to shallow relationships and a sense of individual autonomy? Should we give up our iPods and the freedom to create our own playlists and focus more on making music with one another and experiencing music more in communal, congregational ways? Should we shut off the TV, limit our internet access, and so on so that we can devote more time to interacting in face-to-face ways with other people?
I don’t know the answers, but I would guess that communities that have made conscious decisions like this (an extreme example, the Amish) have their own problems with sin, but probably not individualism, consumerism, and some of the other living worldview issues these authors point out.

Great series and great sounding book.
I can smell another mistaken solution coming — the so-called “God-centered” vs. “Man-centered” debate within primarily Reformed circles rightly intending to place God back at the center of our universe and affections. However, this debate drives me nuts because I believe it is a false either-or.
Yes, we must place God at the center of our affections and deny ourselves as Jesus said. But does it follow that God himself has himself as the chief object of his own love and affection? Is God self-centered? I know how Piper and friends will answer. Seems to me that God is by nature out-pouring, other-oriented, self-giving Love. Our growth in Christ is making us more and more other-oriented with greater capacity for neighbor love and God love.
A bit off topic, but I want to make sure this unhelpful, simplistic solution of exchanging a “man-centered” theology for a “God-centered” theology didn’t slip in to muddy the waters.

What are the characteristics of individualism?
1. My end justifies my means.
2. I am my own moral conscience.
3. Freedom and fulfillment are rights for me.
4. Performance defines my value.
I agree; and too often I live as a self-centered person too. What strikes me as odd — and seems remarkable, is that in an age of such rampant individualism it seems like more and more every day I have my individual choices reduced:
- community policies make me hide my garbage cans
- increased taxation means I have less freedom how I allocate my money
Remember the wonderful smell of leaf burning in the autumn?!? Composting is a good idea, but you can only compost so much. I have not been able to enjoy that smell in decades.
mysilentscream.com

‘The Baroque period gave birth to individualism and each moneyed individual purchased and commissioned creature comforts to an unprecedented scale. The Rococo style was developed on the heels of the Baroque style but one would do well to see them as flip sides of the same coin. The Baroque was born out of the strictures of the Renaissance and Rococo was possibly born out of the horrors of the Reformation. Both styles reflect mankind’s need to define ‘him/herself’ in a time when the world seemed to be chaos and ‘man’ struggled to attain personal freedoms. The Baroque can be viewed as a pragmatic prophecy signaling ‘winds of change.’ Taken from 2 essays I wrote for school in 2003.
Technology provided the means for ‘more men’ than ever before to earn a wage and with that the ‘privilege/responsibility’ of having/owning the right to ‘do with it as he/she pleased.’ This is a necessary development in the quilt of history and the unveiling of God’s ultimate plan for mankind. We have a personal relationship with Jesus and we shall all be judged personally- on what we do or do not do for mankind. This most assuredly must be the belief of the ‘evangelical’ community for/because universities and schools were set up by Christians.
The two-edged sword of individualism is that it was/is a necessary component of the understanding needed to come to Christ.

Jeremy @24,
you said
“Seems to me that God is by nature out-pouring, other-oriented, self-giving Love.”
Yes indeed. I was listening to a podcast recently, wherein the author was making the point that we even tend to see the Persons of the Trinity as three “individuals”, each one with a particular area of responsibility for our salvation/sanctification. But each Person of the Trinity relates to the others as “out-pouring, other-oriented, self-giving Love,” which is not self-centered or at all concerned about being the object of anything. Each Person is just as involved with everything as is the other Two.
As I was reading through Scot’s summary, I thought, among other things, that individualism as we see it in Christian groups may be one aspect of less emphasis on the Trinity as a Unity, or of playing off the Persons against one another.
Dana