Another View 2-9

There is a consistent temptation to define ourselves or others. We create an assortment of labels in order to differentiate ourselves from the other, the other from ourselves. We evaluate another in terms of their attributes (strong, beautiful, handsome, smart, liberal or conservative, and so on). Or we speak of them in terms of their possessions (rich, poor, educational degrees, professions) as if these in some way are integral, when mostly they are our ways of limiting the other. We talk about others regarding their positions (she’s the CEO of such and such, he’s the mayor, she’s the priest, he’s the sexton, she’s the bus driver) often creating a minimalist structure as a way of controlling some sort of “knowing” that is soft at best, judgmental at worst. We obsess over past deeds, things done to us, or that we have done to others.

Perhaps the most heinous injury created by this “defining” is that we create non-reciprocal relationships that separates us from ourselves, from the other. It is a way we have been taught to “value,” or even “devalue” ourselves or another. We create a partial self, both within and without. It’s the culture of individualism. Why do we feel it so necessary to describe ourselves to ourselves and to distinguish ourselves from others?

It is, also, ever so subtle. We think nothing of it, have little awareness that we are creating such a partial and divided existence. It is the very opposite of what we actually want -- communion and community.

Is it too strong, I’ve wondered, to call this culture of individualism a heresy. This heresy is a by-product of a paradigm operated in a scientific way (linear, rational, utilitarian), structuring reality around questions and proceeding then to answer those questions. And, furthermore, as long as the appearance is that the paradigm is working, why re-invent the wheel? We are now at the point where the wheel has turned in on itself. It can no longer respond to the deeper structure of what “wholeness” or “salvation” looks like. One thing is certain, salvation does not look like me alone.

We are now at the juncture where the paradigm comes into question. There are too many anomalies. Newtonian science has given way to quantum science, and gratefully, so have our theological pietisms/paradigms begun to crater as individualism can no longer create a meaningful future if we are to know “full life,” or salvation. Individualism’s “birth mother” is fear. The real mother, Sophia, knows no fear, but says a communal “let it be to me according to your Word.”

What if we were to take a vow to no longer value the things that separate us from one another, or from our self. What if we chose not to value distinction, not to places things or people in opposition, to alleviate ourselves of the demon of competition, to acknowledge each place of hostility as an interior violation, toxic to the universe. What if success is only when we are emptied of the unhealthy ego -- which would be the place of a humility that would be evident only to other, and obscured from our view.

Life would then be lived as personal co-inherence -- that is, in the communion of absolute love. That requires a new paradigm, as well. This paradigm would release us and others from all the domination ways in which love expresses itself. Goodbye to all the “if” clauses and “because” clauses that defeat love’s fullness. No longer, “I’ll love you ‘if’ you do what I want,” or whatever the expectation is. No longer, “I love you ‘because’ you are beautiful, ‘because’ you are nice, ‘because’ you are ….” and we can all fill in the blank. This self-serving expression is not love. It is an oppressive and quantitative conditional love, so it is not love after all.

So, what is individualism shaped by? Christos Yannaras specifies four things:

* The primacy of the intellectual ability of the individual.
* The autonomy of individual will.
* By rationalistic regulation of individual rights and duties.
* By objective backing for our individual choices.

These, he suggests, are the insipient terrorisms that destroy unity within the Church, and I would suggest, destroy us personally. These have become the religion of the day -- so, another cultural piety. These paradigms must go, or we must stop praying “Thy kingdom come,” and begin praying, rather, “My kingdom come.”

What would be another paradigm we might choose to live with? What might inter-dependence look like? Or complimentarity? This is the model of friendship that Jesus spoke of -- “I no longer call you servants, but I call you friends. Here lives reconciliation and inclusion. No longer alone, autonomy is “in the rear view mirror.” Intimacy is born, trust is re-established, and differences reconciled and respected.

“Is he out of his mind!” some will ask. “He is just a dreamer,” some will say. Well, can you come with another paradigm that is so full of hope? In my way of seeing, this is simply more than Another View.