“not myself by myself”
Another Peterson quotation: 
“There can be no maturity in the spiritual life, no obedience in following Jesus, no wholeness in the Christian life apart from an immersion and embrace of community. I am not myself by myself. Community, not the highly vaunted individualism of our culture, is the setting in which Christ is at play.”
In what sense do you agree with E.P.?
In what sense do you disagree?
I agree wholeheartedly that community is necessary for spiritual maturity.
That being said, I really struggle with knowing where individualism fits within Christianity. I really value diversity and individuality, and I know that the more you immerse yourself in one group, the more you will take on the characteristics, thoughts, and beliefs of that group. Herd mentality and bandwagon jumping are easy pitfalls of Christian community.
So I don’t know where I stand with that statement. Maybe we should just make a point to broaden the scope of our community, so that we don’t end up thinking and acting exactly like the members of whatever group we belong too. I think we should take measures to broaden our community outside of Christianity as well, so that we don’t get cornered off and secluded from everyone else.
No easy answer here.
ben
February 29, 2008 at 3:50 pm
I agree with Ben. I wholeheatedly agree with the quote while struggle with knowing where my individuality fits within Christianity. I worry about group mentality and very much an individualist while respecting the desire to belong in a community.
I also counter with an Emerson quote from self-reliance:
“Do not seek yourself outside yourself.”
I think the answer is probably a “yep” as quoted from the marker trick in Rob Bell’s “Everything is Spiritual.”
Jason W.
March 2, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Charlie,
First of all it has been far too long–I am almost done with my BA in sociology. Well I have a response for that quote and its as follows:
I emphatically agree with the quote by Peterson–Jesus Christ can only be understood with in community. In fact, I would argue with Mark Lewis Talyor who claims that the Christ is not only the sociohistorical man, Jesus, but also the communities that participate with him–in the Christ event. Paul Tillich affirms this, “The Christ would not be the Christ without those who receive him as the Christ.” However, I do not think Peterson took his theological perspective far enough. Christ cannot be found in just any community. Not just any community can “receive him [Jesus] as the Christ”. I would argue, that only those communities of oppression can truly accept Jesus as the Christ. James Cone’s crisp language makes this point clear,
Christian community is, therefore, that community who freely becomes oppressed, because they know that Jesus has defined humanity’s liberation in the context of what happens to the little ones . . . .The authentic identity of Christians with poor is found in the claim in which the Jesus-encounter lays upon their own life-style, a claim that connects the word “Christian” with the liberation of the poor.
Here we see that Jesus and the Christ cannot be divorced from the politically, economically and spiritually oppressed. Cone takes this further by claiming that not only are communities of oppression the only true Christians but that Christ pass judgement on those communities who attempt to be both oppressors and Christians. As we all know that the Church has often fortified (and still fortifies) political and economic systems of oppression.
I think that gets my point across for now–I just think this is a message that (if understood) is not practiced. I want to make a stand for the primacy of orthopraxis over orthodoxy.
Any questions or comments please hit me up!
Ross Steinborn
March 15, 2008 at 12:04 pm