Individualism versus Uniformity

Individualism versus Uniformity

This is a very large topic amongst the modern day Christian churches who still practice rules of dress and conduct. Amongst them, it is often derogatory to be called 'Individualistic'.  This is an accusatory term to describe any of their members who might be acting or thinking differently than what is uniform practice or thought.

The scriptures do refer to Christians' submitting themselves one to another in the fear of God, but does that preclude having any individual opinions?

I understand that in times past throughout Christian Church history, there have been efforts made among Meetings and Denominations to have particular dress standardized and specific practices uniform, but were not all of those decisions clearly made with the understanding that each member was to be led by the Spirit to follow or reject?

What is the benefit of Uniformity to Christianity, is there a detriment to Christianity caused by Individualism? Surely there must be some unity for two to be able to walk together, but Unity is not Uniformity. I can be Uniform but not in Union, yet can one be in Union and not Uniform?  I wonder?

In regards to sexuality, the Christian church has historically placed strong prohibitions on just about every manner of expressing it.  Reactionary rulings created in response to ‘pagan’ practice in early Roman times along with the need to grow membership through procreation have ‘outlawed’ almost every natural physical intimate expression.  During the 19^th and 20^th Centuries, many Christians viewed public displays of affection (PDA’s) as obscene and improper, even among lawfully married couples.  Holding hands, giving hugs, and even kisses on the cheek have at various times and amongst various Christian groups been considered taboo.  Many people who have supported these concepts in churches have looked to the writings of Paul the Apostle for the foundation and origin of these notions.

Unity of Belief has been practically and physically expressed through the common culturally acceptable mode of living, specifically as a heterosexual couple.  When a young man comes of age, he is to find appropriate courtship with a member of the opposite gender and then marry according to custom.  They are to procreate within the boundaries of their lawful union and live peaceably together for the remainder of their lives, unified with Christ and His Church by such action.  This is uniformity of physical relationship and has for centuries been the mainstay of Christian society around the world.

Today, and perhaps gradually over the past twenty years, society has increasingly drawn away from this model, from this concept of uniformity, and have allowed other expressions of physical relationship and living to manifest themselves.  These other forms have always existed and were never stamped out by the forced uniformity, but have been ‘underground’ and ‘quieted’ by the practice of the majority.

Some of the buttresses or supports of this main cultural principle have been uniformity of means, fashion, shelter and even geographic location.  During the feudal governing ages in Europe, most of the populace was kept landless and poor by the rich overlords.  Meager rags for clothing, meager dwellings for shelter and the necessity to cramp together in specific locations was the uniform norm amongst most Europeans.  The discovery of America added a new dynamic to this system, opening up a way for individual expression to burst out.  People were now able to spread out on their own lands, make and purchase new and better fashions and build better dwellings.

Unfortunately, some of that individualism has been stymied and hampered by the continued implementation of the old Uniformity and Conformity standards of old Europe.  Relationally and physically, people have been harnessed into certain molds and patterns by Christian religious views and teachings of churches.  To say that some or most of this has been harmful would be wrong, but perhaps there is light to be seen regarding certain aspects of this system.

Being in union with someone basically entails your agreement with them concerning something.  Being uniform with someone, most often means you look like them, but does not mean you think like them.  Being an individual allows one the opportunity to think for themselves and choose to be in union with what and whom they will.  Being uniform precludes one’s ability to express personally ones individual thought.

Some churches, especially those of the Old Order variety, have taken this concept as a characteristic doctrine of the Church, something necessary for Christians to embrace.  Being a thinking individual is deemed dangerous to the uniform adherence and expression of the faith.  Physical relationships, demeanor, financial means, clothing and dwellings are all ruled by this concept and should come into the ‘order’ of the church.

Today, it is a challenge for all individuals to recognize and understand what these issues are really all about.  I personally believe it is possible to own one’s personal ideas or principles and still be in union with the beliefs of Christianity expressed in the Church.  It is harder to be uniform and do this, but perhaps it can be done in some circumstances.

I feel to encourage all those who wonder about life, and belief and faith, to personally challenge their own hearts and see if they can live in uniformity to their specific church.  Being a Christian involves a personal and individual decision and following of Jesus Christ in life and involves union with fellow believers, but uniformity is an addition to this life that may or may not fit everyone.