Christianity, Ego, and Individualism.

Under a Christian model, violations of all 10 Commandments, and especially the 2 Greatest Commandments put forward to Jesus can all be caused by an overactive ego- we steal, kill, put ourselves ahead of others because we think too highly of our place in things. One could argue whether or not the ego is the sole cause of sin, but I’m going to take it for granted that it is at least a major one.
So a good Christian must always wrestle with their ego. Jesus taught humility, even as God- not because God ought to be humble, I reckon, but because Jesus was there to show us what we ought to be.
In the West in general, and in America in particular, Individualism is the word of the day, and has been for some time now. Since the US’s inception at least in theory, though it’s taking on new meanings these days. Does valuing the individual above the community lead to egotism? Always? Sometimes? Not at all? How do we Christians* meld the notions of the rugged individualist determining his own fate, and the good Christian who is humble before God?

Hi Ucc.,

Would it be the ego, or rather it’s over-activeness that is a major cause of sin? What if the ego belongs to our instinct for survival, whereas it’s over-activeness is the sin in question? What is “ego” anyway?

e-go
–noun, plural e-gos.

  1. the “I” or self of any person; a person as thinking, feeling, and willing, and distinguishing itself from the selves of others and from objects of its thought.
  2. Psychoanalysis. the part of the psychic apparatus that experiences and reacts to the outside world and thus mediates between the primitive drives of the id and the demands of the social and physical environment.
  3. egotism; conceit; self-importance: Her ego becomes more unbearable each day.
  4. self-esteem or self-image; feelings: Your criticism wounded his ego.
  5. (often initial capital letter ) Philosophy.
    a. the enduring and conscious element that knows experience.
    b. Scholasticism. the complete person comprising both body and soul.
  6. Ethnology. a person who serves as the central reference point in the study of organizational and kinship relationships.

[Origin: 1780–90; < L: I; psychoanalytic term is trans. of G (das) Ich (the) I]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

What is individualism?

in-di-vid-ul-ism
–noun

  1. a social theory advocating the liberty, rights, or independent action of the individual.
  2. the principle or habit of or belief in independent thought or action.
  3. the pursuit of individual rather than common or collective interests; egoism.
  4. individual character; individuality.
  5. an individual peculiarity.
  6. Philosophy.
    a. the doctrine that only individual things are real.
    b. the doctrine or belief that all actions are determined by, or at least take place for, the benefit of the individual, not of society as a whole.

[Origin: 1825–35; INDIVIDUAL + -ISM]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

Can we Christians© heal anyone before becoming healed ourselves?

Shalom

I’m using ego here mostly like explained in definition 3- our sense of self-importance, how much we feel we matter compared to other people and things around us.

As far as individualism is concerned, I think when it’s talked about like a good thing, it’s usually meant like in defintiion 1, but the problem is in practice it ends up more like 3 than anything. It seems to me that that’s anathema to Christian ethics. I’m wondering first if I’m right about that, and second, if there’s a way to do individualism without it being egoism.

Individualism and Christianity have almost nothing in common. Christians have always existed in community (even monks with a vow of silence meet together). Furthermore, i think Christian theology is best understood in community rather than individually. Catholics understand this idea very well since they cede theological authority to a superior (and ultimately to the pope). But even protestants (where individualism is more rampant) would probably admit that they cede some sort of theological authority to someone else (either their favorite author, preacher, pastor or someone else they know). Few people actually generate their theology from simply reading the bible on their own, and if they do, I think they are more likely to have an unbalanced faith. So, I think ceding some theological authority is healthy. I would argue that the isolated Christian cannot truely understand Christian theology and ethics since they need to be lived out in community rather than simply understood intellectually.

The other issue that comes to mind is patriotism. The glorification of my freedom above all else leads to a poor understanding of Christianity. The US gives individuals many many rights and freedoms that we can confuse with Christianity. Christians above all should be able to understand that we deserve no inherent rights as human beings, we deserve a painful violent death, just like the one 2000 years ago.

Once upon a time, reading the Bible on your own and coming to your own version of Christianity would have been considered daringly, maybe even shamefully individualistic. Nowadays, I think even the Bible may be seen as an authority a person ought take with a grain of salt.
I would agree with you about the isolated Christian- a person needs to grow up (after the first birth or the second, that is to say) in a Christian community in order to understand a great deal, and to live out the ideal. Pascal was right on about that. But this isn’t taught very well in America- ‘authority’ is nearly a synonym for oppression and evil these days. Ironically, not because our authorities actually are that way- compared to the rest of the world, and certainly the rest of the Western Hemisphere, the US does very well. Rather, I think it’s because of ego- we can’t wrap our heads around the concept that we, even I, need to be ruled.

That’s a very daring thing to say, and I suppose your right about that too. At the very least, I would agree that we don’t deserve any better than a painful violent death- whether or not that’s our just desserts, I dunno.

Here’s a question- does our submission to authority extend only to religious matters, or should our default state towards all authority be submission rather than skepticism?

Hi Ucc.,

I tend to stick with “ego” as in the “I” or self of any person; a person as thinking, feeling, and willing, and distinguishing itself from the selves of others and from objects of its thought. I believe that the secret lies in the fact that Jesus says we should be “complete”, as our Father in Heaven is “complete” – which we apparently are not.

Our incompletion or imperfection lies in the inability of our thinking, feeling, and willing to see the full picture, but instead being caught up in the duality of the knowledge of good and evil. We are always in one half of the picture, either we get the front or the back view, the up or the down, in or the out, and all the time we have the impression that we’ve grasp reality. Yet, at the same time, we suspect the unknown, are scared of the dark, imagine dangers in the shadows and hide from God, feeling naked and unmasked and continually watched.

We behave like insecure children, suspecting each other of things we dream up ourselves. We feel threatened and trapped, and trust these feelings, instead of doubting them. Humility would help us overcome such anxiety and turn towards the source of life that made us. God is the sacred Unity we need to become complete – for Jesus as well. That is why he rejected being called “good” and said, “God alone is good!”

The lack of humility is the door to egotism, the overreaction of the ego.

Shalom

I don’t know is the best answer I can give. I have a feeling that our position towards non-religious authority should be more ambivolent that it is. I think we care too much about authority and are deluded by it’s perceived power. But on the other hand Jesus called us to live IN the world so sticking my head in the sand doesn’t seem right either.

What do you think about religious authority? Where do you draw the line? If your pastor/minister/community leader explains his theological position and you see it differently, what is your response? Submission or not? And if not, when do you think submission is appropriate?

I’m impressed kudos to you for defining the terms (normally supposed to be done before any logical debate)

Most religions teach quelling the ego. IMHO ego gets in the way of individualism. I think being true to yourself and developing your own talents is compatible with Christianity. Remember the parable about burying the talents? Yes, you can have less ego and be an individualist.

Confession and repentance would lead to humility and allow your true individual self to take hold.

Lightkeeper, could you explain a little more how individualism can mesh with properly curbe egotism? Would you agree that this requires a rare, or unique take on either individualism, egotism, or both, or do you find the meshing of the two to be pretty common and straightforward? I am especially surprised at your comment that ego gets in the way of individualism. Again, do you think that requires a reinterpretation of either term, or is this something that seems widely understood to you? EDIT: Wrote this just as I was leaving for the day, I’ll respond to some other folks above in the morning.

Stop acting so Jewish, there is no “we”. I am not responsable for the sins of the minority.

“God” violated pleanty of the 10 commandments, also.

Hey hey, he even impregnated another man’s wife.
Adultery = virgin mary Jesus bullshit!

[size=200]BULLSHIT![/size]

That is a form of neurosis.
Self-acceptance & pride is the cure.
Die christendom!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_reality

This is most offensive… yet comforting.

Submission is never appropriate. All ideas must be challenged and left open for discussion. A claim to any knowledge is ignorance coughsocratescough

There are different levels of Christianity. On an intellectual level, Christianity proposes emotional submission to God; this isn’t comparable in the least to physical submission to a political leader or the coolest kid in high school. Ultimately, what a person understands of God, he/she does on the basis of themselves. This isn’t to say that God actually is different for each person, or that He does or doesn’t exist, but that people see God depending upon themselves. Furthermore, we are a part of God or God’s creation in Christianity (and many other religions), so we are theologically being ruled by God as we rule our own thoughts.

In other words, God rules from within a person, so pure faith (not mixed up with empirical ideas) doesn’t contradict individualism, it is in fact a realization of it. A part of who I am is belief in God; I’m submitting to myself.

But then there is the temporal authority of Christianity. Loyalty to a church, pope, historical/physical dogma, and/or clergy does contradict indvidualism. As it happens, this is why we are having so much controversy surrounding the political implications of Christianity.

There’s already a play-pen here on ILP, Dan~, for the young and the er…young at heart. I’m sure any moderator would be happy to direct you there.

Ned Flanders

So you would agree with Churchhill, then? That despite the fact that democracy is nothing like our relationship to God, and that it leads to mistakes in the way we think about that relationship, it’s still better than all the alternatives? That seems reasonable to me, though it’s clear there’s still a problem to be addressed, of how to fit all this talk of ‘rights’ into our image of humans as God’s creatures.

In general, that’s the very problem I’m looking at- that we think we’re owed things by God because of our egos. That, and we think we’re all born theologians.

 This is a hard question, and the very core of my worry that lead me to start the thread. I think the way to procede is to first [i]know thyself[/i].  If something the minister says seems wrong to you, but you have no philosophical/theological/biblical education, and you aren't interested in getting any, then I think submission is the best way. We seem to think these days that not only should authority be questioned at any available moment- but that we are automatically [i]qualified to do so[/i].  If one runs into a stumbling block between themselves and their minister that they just can't let go, then that should serve as a motivation to get educated- through learning, the person hopefully comes to see that the minister was teaching as they did for a good reason, or unfortunately, learns that the minister is in fact mistaken, and now has earned the right to do what is necessary- be that moving on quietly, or speaking out. 

Alun Aedicita
I agree that people see God differently depending on themselves- to an extent, we see everything that way. I think one of the risks of individualism is that we take this ‘personal understanding of God’ too far, and reject or ignore valid outside influences (Bible, ministers) or let them play second fiddle to our private intuitions.

There it is, and yes I agree. I think of Christianity as mainly a body of facts, and since it ties itself to alleged historical events, I think I’m justified in doing so. If Christianity is a business of facts, then other people can know those facts better than we, and submission to a temporal authority becomes a good idea, doesn’t it?

That’s the same problem of humility vs. ego; it can go the other way too, and it’s ultimately more natural for a person to go with themselves than someone else, so I’d rather we err on that side.

Sure, but which authority? If we aren’t qualified to judge, how can we tell whether Episcopalians or Catholics are right? Christians or Hindus? Again, individualism is the most valid determinant, because a religion works when it applies to you; if it doesn’t, a person loses degrees of functionality if they try to conform to it anyway. They’re trying to emotionally submit to something without an emotional drive to do so.

I would argue that religion works as it applies to the community.

Improving the individual is good, but religion as a source for improving the community is better.

Alun Aedicta

Similar to what I said to Ned- the first step is to have a proper understanding of one's place. If a person isn't qualified, and they know this, then the very beginning step would be acknowledge that, and trust the authority you've been born into, I would say.  That is, Hindus should stay Hindu, Unitarians remain Unitarians, and so on- why? Because if you don't know any better, any change will almost certainly be the wrong change for the wrong reasons. I agree with Xunzian that the community is most important- if you are born into a certain religious community, then yes, you should submit yourself to it. That's where you and I would disagree- I think individualism makes people more resistant to this, and this is a bad thing. 
This contents a surprising number of people, and I'm ok with that. If you're one of those that can't abide accepting on faith the words of your minister or guru, then your next step should be to question [i]yourself[/i], and get educated. What is it [i]about you[/i] that makes you at odds with these teachings? Too much pride? Selfishness? Sin? An honest, intellectual disagreement? One should be skeptical of themselves before they are skeptical of anything else, I suppose.  If a person becomes convinced that they are acting on good faith, then study philosophy and theology until you aren't unqualified anymore, I suppose.  This leads me to a question, though.  Anyone can answer, but I really hope 

Ned

Sees the question especially. What do you suppose God’s attitude is to an illiterate farmer who goes through live accepting the words of his religious authorities, being a good person as best as he understands those authorities- if those authorities are Hindu or otherwise non-Christian?

Uccisore,

I agree–although not with the semantics, naturally :slight_smile: I see individualism not as definitively putting yourself above other things, but as a process of developing oneself. Freedom is fundamental to this. I also agree that, under favorable conditions, one’s skepticism ought to be reserved to thought alone until one’s position is understood, which means that one should accept one’s starting religion unless they develop a clear reason to do otherwise. In Christianity, the choice (when it is to stay) is usually called “confirmation”, in Judaism it’s something I can’t spell, etc.

My understanding of God is that a person will be “judged” based upon their integrity, which is how closely they adhere to themselves (that is their whole, true selves). Of course, this position is based on my belief that everyone is capable of overcoming sin, and thus would do so if they were to adhere to their true selves.

*(‘Judge’ is in quotations because I generally have an unconventional view of the concept, but that’s irrelevent to the topic I think. My definition of sin is also a bit weird.)

Hi Ucc,

The message brought by Jesus wasn’t any different than the message by any of the founders of the major religions and philosophies. To be christ-like is the most extreme form of individualism - in understanding. Submission to God is to see one’s self in complete honesty, shorn of the trappings of ego self-importance. Freed from illusion, one is now both an individual (for the first time) and capable of receiving grace. The “gift” of salvation is really a gift from ourselves to ourselves, in that only by becoming a free individual is genuine submission possible. That which is can only enter when invited. The bible states that a rich man cannot enter heaven. How so? I would say that rich is not worldly goods, but rich in the sense of self importance, full of all the illusions of ego. But this is an intensely personal understanding, and only through accepting ourselves as individuals (full of strengths and weaknesses) can we understand and submit to that which is.

To submit to the “authority” of man is entirely different. If one has truly understood, submitted, and accepted in complete honesty,then that individualism will question all authority. Was the life of Jesus or any founder of a major religion not a challenge to man’s authority? Were we not invited to a path seldom trod?

I understand your concern for those who espouse individuality without understanding, but that is the way of the world. Indeed, that is the way of those who are capable only of religion and not of spirituality. Understanding reaches the few, not the many.