Lately, I’ve been in a foul mood. In that vein I want to ask, what the hell’s so wrong with individualistic Christianity? Or, better, why the hell do people who have converted from one tradition to another find it so repugnant? I mean, it just might be that there can be no more individualistic act than conversion, especially the rejection of one communion and its tradition in favor of another.
Why do people do that? I’ve long wondered, especially as I’ve come close to being a convert myself. Yet, throughout blogdom one finds convert after convert. Almost all of them share an unequivocal condemnation of ‘individualism’. Yet they were looking for something, their former communion [in some instances, their former communions] failed to provide it, and so they took their tithe elsewhere. What’s more, their grasp of their former tradition is often thin at best. And, it’s not uncommon for these converts to find their former communions rife with this individualism, and to see in it the source of all their dissatisfaction and alienation.
Now, there is of course an assumption here. To embark on a search for something better, something that fits more closely what we have read about, or whatever, requires boldness, individual initiative, and a sense that one’s judgment is correct. This usually takes the form of a search for the ‘historical Church’, of which we always and ever have vague notions at best. [Let's face it, few of us are Jaroslav Pelikan.] Usually we alight on an author or three whose description of the historical Church makes sense to us. The communion that most closely fits this picture has to be the fullness of the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
For instance, there are a number of Reformed bloggers seeking a fuller, more catholic and rich vision of the Eucharist. A few of them have, naturally, sought to deepen their engagement with Calvin and the gang, including the Reformed scholastics, in the pursuit of this end. As they post the results, something astonishing happens. They receive comments basically telling them to trash the Reformed Gang and turn to transubstantiation, or the Formula of Concord, or the patristic and liturgical heritage of the Orthodox [any of which are, depending on the one making the comment, obviously more ‘holistic’ and 'realistic' and 'pure' than the pitiful Calvinism these bloggers seek]. Of course, a number of these Reformed bloggers are also reading widely in other traditions, but they insist in the face of criticism on keeping faith with the tradition into which they were born.
Now, quite apart from whether I think the Reformed tradition has much to offer here, it’s clear to me that these few Reformed bloggers are less individualistic than the folks who encourage ‘em to break faith with their fathers and seek something better elsewhere. For better or for worse, they take what they’ve been given, receiving it with a touching gratitude. It seems far more individualistic and faithless, at least to me, to just walk away and seek your fortunes in the wind.
Moreover, those who suggest these stalwart Reformed bloggers abandon their engagement with their own tradition in favor of some greener pasture are those who also assert that, inter alia, Calvin or Luther or some such is, however inadvertently, responsible for rampant individualism.
I am certain that those who have read my stuff for more than five minutes know I’m not some wild-eyed relativist. But I am growing increasingly skeptical, even weary, of attacks on ‘individualism’ by folks who have taken that very path themselves, a path that could only be taken in this time and place.