[aron]

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

I am interested to know why individuality is generally supposed to be a virtuous trait for any group in Christendom.

I am not sure if this generalization holds very strongly in "Christendom". I have been a Christian for some years and have traveled a lot and met with different groups, from ultraliberal Unitarians to fundamentalists who said "Women can't speak in church: it's in the Bible". And I've seen a lot of groups in between. I generally don't see individualism being held up as a virtuous trait in any group.

Instead, what I usually see trends more toward what I call "groupthink": to some degree or another, everyone somewhat submerges their individuality to try and fit in. That's why, by definition, it's a group, not merely a temporary collection of individuals in shared space. Some common denominator, if only faith in Jesus Christ, calls us together out of every tribe, tongue, nation, and socio-economic class to gather together and celebrate God's salvation in Jesus Christ, and to look together towards His soon return.

Now, having said that, I really loved my initial "Lord's recovery" meetings because it was a free-for-all. Not chaos, though a few times it bordered on that. But what I loved was that everyone was allowed to share whatever portion of "Christ" they thought was relevant to the group experience. You had truck drivers sharing, then PhD's; you had some old Chinese woman who knew Watchman Nee back in China speaking right after some young blonde college student who just got saved last week. Somehow it all worked, and marvelously. God wasn't threatened by our "individualism" - hardly. Rather you got the sense of the Father rejoicing in all His children. More than once I got a glimpse of wide eyes and astonished face of some incredulous visitor, as if they were thinking, "Who's in charge here?"

We certainly do not find any evidence in the history of the early church that individuality - the individual expression of a "ministry" within the context of a local church - was a desired trait. In fact, one could reasonably argue that Paul strove against such things as this that tend to cause division.

Au contraire. I would recommend listening to an audio Bible sometime, and listen for the "voice" of Paul versus that of John. The two styles could hardly be more different. Yet Christ was pleased to reveal Himself in each one. Then Peter, James, etc. Each one brimming with a unique voice; with "individuality". None of them "the apostle of the age", to which all others must slavishly submerge their thoughts and identities. More on this later.

Today in the denominations there are various "ministries" and various opinions, most of which are praised by believers as being "wonderfully diverse." Yet I believe that most can agree that there is no regulation or at least very little discernment of those diversities. So why would it be inherently wrong to suppress individuality, especially in consideration of the fact that there is no Biblical pattern for individuality?

Didn't God call all individuals into a corporate Person?

I know that tlg may no longer be posting and this conversation may have run its course, but I just wanted to comment to this post, especially the bolded part, above. The problem with trying to "suppress individuality", as tlg puts it, is that it ultimately becomes a cover for one personality, one individuality, to dominate everyone else. In this present case the individuality was of Witness Lee. We aped his mannerisms, his speech inflections, his language (I quit saying something was the 'best'; instead it was now the 'top'), and his hermeneutics. So if WL said that Christ didn't inhabit the bulk of the Psalms, contrary to the NT's repeated indications, then we all agreed: they were just "natural" expressions of the "fallen sinner" king David. We were no longer to ''eagerly search the scriptures'' daily seeking Christ; He is not there, says ''God's present oracle''. Instead just stick with ''the interpreted word'', stick with the "daily food".

By our trying to "suppress individuality" we actually foster the individuality of someone who is not Jesus Christ. In this case we begin to express WL, not Jesus Christ. I am not blaming WL; if it had been "the church of ARON" it would have been much, much worse!

I just think tlg has been caught by a bad idea, that's all. I was there; eventually I saw the result of this idea bearing fruit. You suppress your "individuality" to be a part of the group, and both you and the group begin to express something that is not Jesus Christ. You may have "one trumpet" but it is not from heaven. It is the trumpet of suppression, of conformity, of domination, of Babylon. It is a veneer of unity, with confusion lurking within. As I've said before, look at the 'unity' described in Revelation 13:8. Hardly our goal.

Contrast that to the repeated praises in Revelation 19. Verse 6, for example, says "Then I heard what sounded like a great multitude, like the roar of rushing waters and like loud peals of thunder, shouting: “Hallelujah! For our Lord God Almighty reigns..." John, attempting to characterize what he hears, uses several dissimilar terms (multitude, waters, thunder), each of which has its own modifiers to highlight its inherent complexity, and the combination of all three together recollects in my mind the very "local church" meeting I remember so well, of various individual, unique personalities uninhibitedly expressing corporate thanks and praise and glory to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Why suppress that? Why submerge that? What "body" over-rules that marvelous noise? That is, rather, the "body" of a corpse. Any life it once possessed has long since gone.