Part 2 - A More Robust Theology

As mentioned, the difficulty with some "Western" theology, is that it is less robust.  Revelation 3:20 says, "Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me." This is one of the few times where the scripture talks about us, in essence, inviting Christ into our life. However, this theological statement, once again, is less than robust by itself. The point of good exegesis is to take the scripture in all its context. The reality is that we are told to, "Invite Christ into our lives," but the truth is that Christ has invited us into HIS life. Which is the larger life, the life where we invite Christ into our smaller individual lives, or where we join in Christ's life? Do we ask Christ to come into our lives and bless what we are doing or do we ask for Christ to allow us into HIS life and for us to be blessed by what HE is doing? Do we receive more power by asking Christ to empower us in our life or are we empowered by being in his life? Christ is united with us, but the bigger picture is that we are united with Christ.

Interestingly enough, Philippians 2 addresses this "being united with Christ" AND does so in the context of in community, humility and not being selfish - among other things.  These are the very things that go against individualism. Once again, this is theology in the context of community, not just the individual. The concept of individuals asking Jesus into his or her life, once again, is so very individual and separate from community. Asking for Jesus to invite us into HIS life, gives us the life he was talking about in John 10:10, "I have come that they may have life, and life to the fullest."  "They," not "he" or "she".  They implies a community, not an individual.

Life in and of The Church is not about the individual, it is about The Body (1 Corinthians 12). Salvation can occur outside the context of community, though it is difficult. Sanctification, however, must happen in the context of community. Community guards against individualism, narcissism, selfish ambition, conceit and all the other things that have been contributing to the steady and continued decline of our culture. Community brings about a more full life of fellowship, joy, struggles, opportunities, giving, receiving, listening, hearing, and so many other things that help us experience "life to the fullest". 

We so miss these concepts of full theology and community that, I suspect, if Jesus Himself were to walk into most Western churches or youth functions, few would recognize him. Should we think this impossible, remember the Pharisees and Sadducees did not recognize God though he walked in their presence. And what exactly was it that blinded these devoted and religious "servants of God" to His very presence? It was the fact that these religious people were so into self-righteousness and so exclusive in their religious pursuits that they left many out of The Kingdom. Their community was a very exclusive one. Does this sound familiar to today's denominationalism, segregated Sunday Mornings (by age, denomination, socio-economics, race, etc.), focus on individual salvation at the cost of community?

Finally, the Body of Christ is supposed to be the reflection of community found in the complete community found in The Trinity. This is why we must reclaim an fuller understanding of Trinitarian Theology, community and what it means to die to ourselves (Matthew 10:39, John 12:24). The single seed (the individual) must die to itself in order to produce many seeds (community). This is a message so desperately needed in today's ego-centric, selfish and narcissistic culture.

A More Robust Theology

I have recently been stating that something is missing in Western theology.  Our cultural perspectives have become individualistic, shallow and narcissistic.  I believe that this stems from our theology.  What I have been trying to state in a very struggling manner can be put this way:

"Christocentric Reformed ecclesiology tends to focus on the salvation of an individual rather than on the demonstration of the kingdom of God; thus it can lead to individualism of faith and individualism in the local church."  (This contributes to individualism within the culture. My addition to this quote.)

"All three persons of the Trinity are involved in the emergence and life of the Christian community.  The Father sends the Son to redeem a people for himself, the Son dies on the cross to effect this redemption and the Spirit is given by the Father through the Son to the redeemed community, the church."

"A trinitarian ecclesiology is far more effective in understanding the nature and function of the church and its ministry: it not only allows the church to overcome underlying hierarchical thinking with regard to gender and various offices, but it also enables the mission of the church to be viewed and practiced in the broader perspective of proclamation and the demonstration of God's sovereigh authority all over the world.  A trinitarian ecclesiology, however, need not weaken the Christological center of its ecclesiology.  It does not lead to a denial of Christ's death on the cross as the only way to salvation, because the meaning of the cross is even mor fully explicated within a trinitarian framework."

(Quotes taken from The Missional Church In Context, The Possibility of Transforming GAPCK into a Missional Church, Joon Ho Lee, Craig VanGelder, Editor, 2007, William B. Eerdmans Publishing, Pp. 180-181.)

This is the perspective of a Korean Missiologist and Theologian.  This is why we need to get out of our Western theological slant that leans toward individualism.

The larger question is how much has Western theology contributed to the downfall of community and given us a slant toward the narcissism we now face?  Can the Church be a catalyst for a renewed vision for community?

The Most Dangerous "ism" Of All

The older I get and the more I know, the more I know I do not know.  Life is full of paradox.  No matter what an individual may think, say or right, there seems to always be a counter thought.  I know this will be true of what I write here.  However, paradox seems to have trumped common sense.  There are many dangerous “-isms” in our world today, but especially in Western societies.  There certainly are dangers in the isms of sexism, racism, classism, communism, socialism and even capitalism.  There is perhaps no more dangerous “ism” than that of individualism.  The shooting sprees that have seemingly become rampant in America recently are definitely a product of individualism coupled with narcissism.  Think about the mass shootings that have occurred in recent American history – most carried out by lone individuals or no more than two individuals.

            It has been said that, “Things like this have always occurred but we are simply hearing more about it now with the proliferation of media.”  To which my response is, “Really?  Do you mean to tell me that when my parents were growing up on the cusp of the age of television and beyond, they were not made aware of nationally traumatic events over the radio and newspaper?”  If an adult or child had gone into a school on a shooting rampage during my parents’ day, they certainly would have heard about it.  As to other crimes against children, the horrific crimes of sexual exploitation and child molestation, may certainly have been covered up.  They may have occurred during a time when people “did not talk of such things”, but is it logical to then say that it happened to the same degree and depth that it occurs in today’s society?  In a hyper-sexualized culture where the care of children has been systemically abandoned from the smallest family units to larger institutions, is it any wonder that the sexual exploitation of children has become seemingly more rampant?  To say, “pish-posh” to such an accusation is naïve.  One only has to look at the sexualizing of children from child models to toddler “beauty” pageants to the progression from “Disneyesque” preteen stars to young pop culture icons.

            The marketing machine has found its way into the pockets, wallets and purses of children under the age of 18 either through marketing to the children themselves or to their parents.   Children have become little more than consumers for manufacturers and status symbols for parents.  A recent, and excellent movie entitled, “The Odd Life of Timothy Green” reflects the shift in the mentality of caring for the needs of a child to using children to provide for the emotional needs of the parents.  In the movie, which I believe reflects this sentiment; two parents desire a child and make a wish list of the characteristics of the child should have making him (or her) near perfect.  While the child fulfills nearly every wish (in his own unique way), the parents begin to realize that this child, let alone any other child, will not be “perfect”.  Behind the scenes however, the child makes many personal sacrifices in order to make the adults happy.  “Timothy Green” reflects the current Western sentiment of using children for the happiness of the parents.  When this cannot happen, or the child is perceived as inconvenient, he or she is aborted.

            Individualism and narcissism present many problems to the detriment of a society.  A considerable problem is that too many people are looking for systematic failures when ascribing blame to individuals, organizations or institutions when the problem is more complex than systematic failures.  Systematic failures are much easier to see, quantify, explain, and used to place blame on someone else.  Systematic failures are also more easy to deal with.  The real culprit and problem is systemic failures.  Systemic failures are more complex and difficult to deal with for they come about from decisions that have unforeseeable results that can become complex by related decisions in the future.  What is more, these unforeseeable results are often linked to other seemingly unrelated decisions that add to the complexity and brokenness of other decisions made.  It is indeed a complex matrix that becomes very difficult to disentangle, let alone set straight.

            Individualism has become such a matrix.  We have become a nation that was once “for the people, of the people and by the people” and is now, “for the person, of the person and by the person”.  The systemic failures resulting from the individualism are only now becoming very apparent.  Rights such as freedom of speech, the freedom to bear arms and all other “rights” guaranteed to the American people have been taken to such extreme that we are reaping the systemic consequences to our own demise.  We have sacrificed any semblance of what is best for the community on the altar of individual “rights”.

            Ironically, sociopathic behaviors can be defined as such individualism – not caring for the norms of the collective for the benefit of society.  A paraphrased definition of sociopath, according to the DSM IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition) is, “People with Antisocial Personality Disorder (sociopath, psychopath) try to get their way without being considerate of others. They show spontaneous behavior, which humiliates or harms other people. They lack any feeling for or understanding of norms, nor have they any feeling of guilt. They do not seem to be able to plan actions or to act with foresight.”  This definition fits the current individualistic and narcissistic pursuits of current day America.  Parents have abandoned parental responsibilities in order to be their child’s “friend” and to pursue their own agendas and comfort.  It is easy to be a friend; it is much more difficult to be the loving and disciplinary parent all children need.

            Different forms of media are sociopathic as well.  Producing pornographic images, movies other media is protected under freedom of speech rather then acknowledged as the harmful smut that it is.  Pornography is nothing more than a medium for individual sexual gratification and the sexualization of another human being.  Media also protrays violence, prolific foul language and the degradation of other human beings and is protected under freedom of expression.  Our children are exposed to conversations on morning radio rampant with sexual content.  Those who would make the argument, “Turn off the radio or television or do not purchase certain items,” are unaware of their shallow arguments because they are not aware of systemic issues.  Decision A leads to decision B, which leads eventually to unforeseen outcome D, E or F.  Indeed, I may be able to turn off a radio station or a television station but how do I avoid my son seeing a rolling advertisement on a truck that has a scantily clad woman selling vodka?  (This has indeed happened in a couple of different situations.  When liberties are granted in excess ad nauseam, common sense is lost – all under the banner of “freedoms”.  Do I now have to be the responsible adult by requiring my 10 year-old son to wear a blindfold whenever we are traveling down the road?)

            A few years ago, a movie that portrayed gratuitous violence hid behind the cloak of freedom of expression and claimed that their media output had no effect on societal violence.  This statement was made in one breath but then in the very next breath the producers lauded their efforts on public safety as the characters put on their seatbelts before a high speed chase and made the comment, “Safety first”.  This is akin to saying, “Your child…” to your spouse when your child misbehaves and then, “My child…” when the child does something well.  It is called passing the blame.  It is convenient for media to play up what they consider to be noble and yet hide behind rights for ignoble or malevolent actions.  If media does not have an effect on people, why even have it?  If media does not have an effect on people then logically commercials and advertising would be a waste of billions of dollars.  Media matters.

            The most dangerous thing about individualism, coupled with narcissism, is when they become “protected rights” to the detriment of the society in which the individuals live.  More then protected, all the evils listed above are labeled as rights simply for the satisfaction of individuals.  The obvious outcome is the disintegration of a society at the cost of protecting individualism.  The mantra, “Everyone has the right to be right (or have certain rights)” in non-sensical and illogical.  Not everyone can be right.  To insist that two plus two equals five simply because an individual has a right to freedom of speech only serves to validate the insanity of that individual.  I suppose it would be easy to then say that a society obsessed with individualism is bound to be a society where insanity is the norm.