American Christianity and the Individualized Gospel

 [Queue overused joke/phenomenon of being scared or disinterested in talking to our neighbors vs. “the good ol’ days when everyone knew and talked to everyone else”]

Huge caveat here that this post is specifically focused on churches in the US. Why? Because that’s what I’ve experienced. Yes, I have travelled around the world but not extensively, and certainly not enough to speak about church elsewhere. And even these general statements are broad brushstrokes to be sure. Different regions of the US (and local congregations) cannot be judged by what’s said here. 

I would think generally, though, that the culture of the US is becoming more individualized. Sure, we come together for parties or sporting events or graduations. But by and large, we like to keep to ourselves, our families, and our immediate circles. The pandemic certainly didn’t help this. We were shoved into isolation for large portions of time, and we are still seeing side affects of this, regardless of age, occupation, gender, personality, and other background traits.

Individualism and commercialism go hand in hand. What’s in it for me? How does x or y benefit me? Commercials scream at us about how this product will make our life better. Politicians literally scream at us about how they will improve our daily living. We save for retirement to make future years more comfortable than they would be otherwise. 

Asking for help is usually a last resort. Admitting a failure or mistake is gut wrenching—mostly because culture or community or even friends/family may even completely abandon us. We are forced often to depend on ourselves.

Again, I can’t speak of cultures globally, and I don’t want to stereotype too much, but I know at least ancient cultures were not this way. Commitment to family and community was much stronger. (Of course, there were exceptions). I believe and have researched/heard a bit from others/friends/scholars that Eastern cultures typically have a closer bond. 

Culture is one thing. The real issue is when the Lone Ranger mentality creeps into the church. If I think that I can follow Jesus all by lonesome, I’m severely mistaken. Granted, people are morons. They make mistakes. They lie, annoy, and refuse to listen. They get angry and prideful. And that’s just those who claim to know Jesus.

I have been in a local church since before I was born. I have seen the best and the worst of Christians—well, not the worst. But I am well aware of our greatest sins throughout history, and I am appalled. 

And when I enter conversation with those equally disgusted, I concede much of our errors, and my errors. 

But this is not that time. 

This is a call to remember that the church is the bride of Christ. He loved/loves her. He died for her. And if anyone thinks they can love/follow Jesus and not the church, they don’t love Jesus.

Love is a weird word, though, because sometimes it can mean calling out our errors and flaws. Sometimes it can mean serving and being fully involved in ministry. Sometimes it can mean giving all we have to those in need. Sometimes it can mean cheering for others as they do what we are unable to do.

Here are some specific ways that this mindset of an “individualized gospel” can play out in the American church:

Attendance: This may seem too obvious, but if someone does not see himself/herself as integral to the body of Christ, he/she will not gather with other believers. We have seen this since the pandemic, and in many cases, that’s ok. I’m not arguing for putting people in danger. Personal health is an important factor, and everyone must make their own decisions. 

But as a chaplain I enter many homes where the recurring chorus is “We went to church up until the pandemic. Now it’s just harder to go.” And the patient may or may not have extended family nearby. But every time, my heart skips a beat, knowing there’s a whole community of people waiting with gross potato salad and stale rolls. A merry band of individuals to come pray, read books, sing songs, play Checkers, anything to make each day more memorable and bring joy. Could the local church reach out automatically and do all this? I suppose. But if someone stops coming for years, it’s awfully difficult to expect a church to keep up with illnesses or family history. At least inform them of the circumstances. 

Worship: This is no time to debate every lyric of Hillsong, Bethel, and Elevation. If we put several hymns and modern CCM songs side by side, we would see strengths and weaknesses to each. Some of the same criticisms could be leveled against both. One of those is the “me-centered” ness that is usually ascribed to modern songs (and I would agree it’s more of an issue with newer songs). Salvation is about what Jesus has done for “me,” what “I” receive, “my” new life/rescue, etc. None of which is wrong, inaccurate. But we need a more balanced emphasis on two things: (1) God’s glory, which is the end of salvation and (2) a corporate view of salvation (see below)

Service/Missions: Maybe this doesn’t follow as much. But I wonder if it’s easier to give online or write a check than to give of time or energy due to an individualistic mindset. Would we rather give $100 than a week or two to serve? Or would we rather buy some groceries than go serve the poor in a low-income neighborhood or at the kitchen downtown? I don’t know. I haven’t surveyed anyone. Just thoughts.

Does it affect our theology?

Church language: How many times do we use the word “church” for its local vs. global use? Yes, the apostles wrote letters to local churches (perhaps to regions composed of local churches). Elders are appointed over local churches. Church membership is important on a local level; otherwise, the commands of accountability and authority are pretty moot. But I wonder if the 59 one another statements apply in a local or global context? Am I only supposed to forgive those in my local gathering? Definitely not. Am I only supposed to pray for those who come to the same building as me on Sunday? That’s silly.

We think of the global church once in a while, but a more consistent view would eliminate petty arguments. It would elevate the essentials within the church. We would be more unified. We would value diversity. We would focus on Jesus, because He unites all peoples in Him (Rev 7-8).

Atonement: I have been reviewing this major doctrine for a month or so, and I haven’t read any major books, yet. I like what I heard where the Bible doesn’t care about theories or view of “atonement.” It’s more like the death of Jesus is one of the most simple, yet complex events in history. The implications of it are drastic for all history. It’s mentioned throughout the NT, and nearly every song alludes to its effects. But the more I read the verses, I notice some repeated themes. Here are some of the major verses that mention substitution as we like to talk about Jesus’ death. 

Isaiah 53:1-12  Who has believed what he has heard from us? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.  (**Needs more notes later, but Isaiah has a couple passages on Israel as the “servant.” To apply the term to an individual here is possible. The NT certainly applies it to Jesus, but that’s looking back.)

2 Corinthians 5:21  For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”—

Mark 10:45  For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Colossians 2:13-15 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

Hebrews 2:17  Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

Romans 5:8  But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

2 Corinthians 5:14-15  For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; And he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

Romans 8:32  He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?

Ephesians 1:14 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, ...

Romans 5:17-19 For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

I can’t discuss all these passages here. NT Wright would say, “Ok, now let’s go back to the Gospels and see what the story is behind the crucifixion.” But the one thing that jumps out at me here is that Jesus always died “for all,” “for many,” or simply “for sin.” 

What’s missing? Me, my, I. Did Jesus die as a sacrifice? Yes. Did He did instead of someone? Sure. Instead of me for my sin that deserves just punishment for all eternity (i.e., God’s outpouring of wrath)? If you want to say it that way. 

What makes much more sense to me through the narrative and in these passages here is the idea of corporate solidarity. Whether it’s Adam or Israel, both failed. Paul says, In Adam all died. Israel failed in her mission as well. Corporate solidarity has an individual represent a group. It’s similar to covenantal headship, where the family head represents the family. Jesus came and represents Israel, fulfilling her mission, obeying the Law perfectly. As He is murdered unjustly, He is able to become the Suffering Servant and take her sins onto Himself.

Multiple theories of atonement can be simultaneously true.

My point here is that we nearly always see Jesus dying for sins of the people. And if I as an individual am “in Christ” then my sin is forgiven as well. I love when I see tweets about not accepting Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior. I personally accept Jesus as Lord and Savior. Big difference.

Personal/Individual

We do have one verse with the 1st person singular pronoun, but this seems to be unique.

Galatians 2:20 

I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

V. 16-21 is heart of the letter and v. 17 has the plural “sinners.” Paul seems to be using himself as an example here. He discusses his relationship with the law, how it brought death, but also how he fulfills its demands “in Christ.” (Not to mention the whole NPP debate in v. 20 with “faith” vs “faithfulness” of the Son of God.) 

I am not really trying to persuade any one of anything. I’m just thinking through the texts and what makes most sense to me at this point. Even in Galatians 2:20, there’s unity “with Christ” so corporate solidarity is in view. Jesus giving life “for me” doesn’t mention sin directly here, though it is relevant to the passage. This seems to combine the themes of conquering kingdom, rescue, and also substitution. Nevertheless, it’s one verse that has a singular pronoun vs. all the others with plurals, and I would suggest our teaching reflects the same ratio.

This is not to resort to the heresy of thinking someone gains eternal life simply because of “religious heritage” or association. “I’ve been in church my whole life” or “my dad’s a preacher” excuses. This is still an individual decision, but I will probably emphasize the corporate side of the atonement or at least look for it throughout Scripture. And I will look for ways to emphasize community, both local and global over this me and Jesus religion.

In conclusion, for this subject, I never understood the theology of the atonement within the narrative of the gospels (as a kid or even now as adult). I know and believe the truths. I know the verses. But how does a voluntary, even every day occurrence of a death translate to a sacrifice for all mankind, or a payment, or fill in the blank on a cosmic scale? I think this makes much more sense in a corporate, representative sense. And of course, I as an individual am part of the people who gained life and forgiveness because of Jesus’ death. Nothing really changes except a renewed focus on belonging to a group. 

We could probably find other areas of theology where an individualistic mindset is harmful, such as eschatology (trying to get to heaven vs. building for kingdom community). But I think this is sufficient for now. 

Revelation 21:9-27

“Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven final plagues came and spoke to me, saying, “Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb!” So he took me away in the Spirit to a huge, majestic mountain and showed me the holy city, Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God. The city possesses the glory of God; its brilliance is like a precious jewel, like a stone of crystal-clear jasper. It has a massive, high wall with twelve gates, with twelve angels at the gates, and the names of the twelve tribes of the nation of Israel are written on the gates. There are three gates on the east side, three gates on the north side, three gates on the south side and three gates on the west side. The wall of the city has twelve foundations, and on them are the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. The angel who spoke to me had a golden measuring rod with which to measure the city and its foundation stones and wall. Now the city is laid out as a square, its length and width the same. He measured the city with the measuring rod at fourteen hundred miles (its length and width and height are equal). He also measured its wall, one hundred forty-four cubits according to human measurement, which is also the angel’s. The city’s wall is made of jasper and the city is pure gold, like transparent glass. The foundations of the city’s wall are decorated with every kind of precious stone. The first foundation is jasper, the second sapphire, the third agate, the fourth emerald, the fifth onyx, the sixth carnelian, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth chrysoprase, the eleventh jacinth, and the twelfth amethyst. And the twelve gates are twelve pearls – each one of the gates is made from just one pearl! The main street of the city is pure gold, like transparent glass. Now I saw no temple in the city, because the Lord God – the All-Powerful – and the Lamb are its temple. The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, because the glory of God lights it up, and its lamp is the Lamb. The nations will walk by its light and the kings of the earth will bring their grandeur into it. Its gates will never be closed during the day (and there will be no night there). They will bring the grandeur and the wealth of the nations into it, but nothing ritually unclean will ever enter into it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or practices falsehood, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.”

— ‭‭Revelation‬ ‭21‬:‭9‬-‭27‬‬

Debating the seven angels and the structure of Revelation for when these seven bowls fall in sequence is best to leave for another day.  This chapter is one of the most encouraging, because it (and chapter 22) provide a glimpse of what we assume to be “heaven.” 

However, as we read, we can see a couple ideas, most notably that John sees New Jerusalem coming down to earth. I hesitate to base my entire view of future realities on one passage, especially one so symbolic, but there are others that emphasize earth being remade. An overall theme of Scripture is what’s old is made new—something like redemption. Furthermore, God is the acting agent, and another repeated theme is His longing to live among His people. So it is not surprise here to see “heaven” coming to earth, and this appears to be the ultimate reconciliation of the two realms (in earth’s glorified state). 

The slightly confusing part is what this vision actually represents. John is known for his double meanings, and this could be a good example. Is this really a city? Is he showing us a location where we will live, a status/situation of existence, or something else entirely?

Here’s the kicker: The angel says, I’m going to show you “the bride, the wife.” I don’t think anyone has any questions on what/who that is. The bride of the Lamb is/has always been the church. That’s pretty universal throughout the NT, among all authors. But John turns to see…not the church. He sees a city coming down from heaven. Did the angel lie, or is this one big chapter of symbols. (It could be both, but there could be clues throughout to show John’s emphasis).

12 gates to represent the tribes of Israel, and 3 on each side—somewhat reflect the tribes position around the tabernacle. 12 foundations as the apostles—so 24 brings us back to what many think represent 24 elders earlier in the book. These represent the entire people of God.

Apparently the city is a cube, 1400 miles tall, wide, and deep. Umm, that’s really tall. And the gate is only 144 cubits, which I don’t have math for that right now, but as others have points out, it’s not exactly proportional to the height of the wall. It’s really short if it’s trying to “protect” a city that massive. A clue these numbers are representing something else.

Isaiah 54 and 60 are a big backdrop for this passage. 54 references wedding of Israel and YHWH, also some jewels, and enlarging the tabernacle area. 

I cannot discuss all the pictures of gold and jewels here. But pure gold is most likely a picture of purity/moral cleanness. God’s people have been cleansed and have righteous status. Various jewels pop up throughout OT, whether the garden of Eden, the temple decorations, or the priest’s vest. All important for worship of God and where He dwells.

The city is pure gold (transparent) and now the main road is the same. We could make a huge deal that only one street is gold and not “streets” as we hear often, but since John is probably not emphasizing real streets anyway, the point is moot. Beale, Revelation, 1089 notes that “the street of the city” is only mentioned one other place in the book—chapter 11 where the prophets are killed and left in the street (of Jerusalem). Whether one takes these prophets as two literal people or representative of the entire church doesn’t matter. It is significant that the street of blood, martyrdom, and persecution has become stainless, pure, and illustrative of the saints’ glory in the New Jerusalem.

Revelation 22:2 also mentions the main street (just not in that phrase). The river of life flows either down the middle of it or parallel to it (depending on where a sentence break is. And the tree of life grows along the river (symbolizing eternal life for those who enter God’s kingdom). The point is the main street of a city often carried sewage outside the city. Here it is pure, clean, and gives life. What a contrast between the old and the new.

Ezekiel 40-48 describe a “new temple,” and some see this as fulfilled in the millennium. Perhaps. Maybe that’s another debate for another time, but I can’t see how sacrifices could ever be reinstated after Jesus’ death and reading anything in the book of Hebrews. Revelation 21-22 describes a situation that would come after millennium, and there at least there is not temple. There’s no need for a special place to meet God, because He will be there in His full glory. 

His glory will shine and become so overwhelming, that John says there’s no sun or moon. But if creation is being transformed or repurposed in this new world, then there may be sun/moon. I don’t know. They’re purpose may be different. I like sunsets/sunrises. The point here is that God’s glory fills His new creation with majesty and splendor.

Gates never close. I thought all the “bad people” were taken care of by this point. And…if everyone who worships God is in the city, then where would we go? Who would want to leave the city where God is dwelling? I would think this is also a picture of what the perfect city would look like. (And again, John may be describing both the bride and the living situation at the same time. It gets confusing). This is asking the reader to picture a city in the ancient world that didn’t have to worry about attack, siege, war, invasion, etc. Guests, travelers, or embassies could approach without anyone having any fear. These verses are a summary of perfect safety and security. 

Furthermore, the mention of Gentiles is fulfillment of prophecy where nations will enter Israel and share in her wealth (Isa 60). So a bunch to dig deeper into here, but after the final resurrection, our eternal state with God will be absolutely glorious. 

Glorified bodies, living in a world with no fear or chaos. Vindicated from our enemies through faith in Jesus. And best of all, Jesus is reigning.